fjt 75 ^T t^t *.l 



^^<&SoJ^^ 



I LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 



?^ 1*^ ■■ ♦-^ '^ ♦> *"*-^ V»^ .A^ N -,, 

itJit Jif ?;♦ ??• •?* iViVifCiV i^ ^ ■ 



):6 







I (JSITED STATES- OF. IMEfilCA. % 



THE 



GREAT QUESTION AXSWERED ; 



OR, 



IS SLAA'ERY A SIA^ IN ITSELF 



(PER S E •? ) 



ANSWERED ACCORDING TO THE 



TEACHING OF THE SCRIPTURES. 



^ 

BY J AS. A. ^^LOAN, A. M 



M E M P HI S : 

PRIXTEl) AT THE AVALANCHE SOCTIIEKN BOOK AND .loi! DFFICK, 

BY IIUTTOX, CALLAWAY & CO. 

IS 37. 




t.4- 



Entered according to Act of Congress in the year of our 
Lord 1857, by James A. Sloax, in the Clerk's office, in 
the U. S. Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. 



CONTENTS. 



IXTRODUCTIOX Page 7 

CHAPTER I.— Puile of Faith and Practice 13 

CHAP. II.— The Relation of Church and State, 18 

CHAP. III.— Sul)ordination or Order in all of God's 

Works 48 

CHAP. IV.— The Origin of Color and Slavery 56 

CHAP, v.- Do the Writers of the Old Testament 

treat Slavery as a Sin in itself? 87 

CHAP. VI. — Examination of Polygamy and Slavery 
in the Light of the Biljle — Are they 
treated ahke by the Bible? ll-i 

CHAP. VII.— Does the New Testament Condemn 

Slavery as a Sin in itself? 137 

CHAP. VIII.— The Duties of Masters and Servants, 217 

CHAP. IX.— The Fugitive Slave Law— The Duty of 
Citizens in relation to it — Is it Con- 
stitutional ? 249 

COXCLUDIXG REMARKS 281 



1 NTIIODUCTIOX. 



'So n-iiK-li bns been lately written on the sub- 
ject of Slavery, that it would appear to the dis- 
interested observer that nothing new or addi- 
tional can be added; still, after all that has been 
written and said, there are some points which 
have been to a great extent overlooked by 
those who have undertaken to discuss the sub- 
ject. A few writers have attempted to wi'ite 
in the proper spirit ; to appeal to the pro})er 
authority ; but this class have taken it for grant- 
ed that the relation is politically right, without 
examining carefully into the true or moral re- 
lation of Master and Slave. In consequence of 
this, many important (piestions have been left 
without any other consideration than a mere 
passing remai'k, thus leaving the real difficulty 
unreinoved from the mind of the candid in- 



•8 IX TRO DUCT I ox. 

quircr after truth. Another class of writers 
and cleclaimers, liave assumed that the relation 
is morally and politically wrong — sinful in it- 
self; and from this view of the subject have 
•denounced, in the very worst terms, not only 
the system as a gigantic wrong, but that those 
who sustain the relation of a Master, are un- 
mitigated tyrants, unworthy of respect among 
civdiized men, and beyond the covenanted mer- 
cies of God. With this class of writers and 
declaimers we have no controversy; their per- 
ceptions are all darkened ; they look at all things 
pertaining to the subject through a false me- 
dium. On the minds of such men, the clearest 
logical demonstration falls utterly powerless; 
tlie brightest light has the same eifect on their 
vision, as it has on that of a bat — that is, it only 
makes them blinder. If they should ever see 
the error of their way, the conviction must be 
produced by a higher power than that of man. 
We may, however, occasionally notice the posi- 
tion and arguments of res|)ectable writers on the 
•other side; but still, it is not our main object 



INTRODUCTION. 9 

in writing on this niucli mooted point. We 
wish to write a few })hiin things for the benefit 
of plain and common people, and especially to 
discuss the question, "Is Slavery sinful in itself?*' 
{jper se.) This is the point that one class of 
writers take for granted as being right; the 
other class assume that it is wrong; and hence, 
the honest inquirer is left in doubt after he has 
waded through works and speeches on both 
sides of the ({uestion. The stability of our re- 
publican institutions is threatened by the contin- 
ual and angry discussions on this Slavery ques- 
tion ; and while there are many, both at the 
North and at the South, wlio would be glad to 
seize on any pretext to pull down the fair tem- 
ple of liberty, we are fully satisfied that there 
is a large number, more particularly at the 
North, who would be more hearty in their co- 
operation in maintaining the Constitution of 
their country, if they were fully and conscien- 
tiously satisfied that it did not uphold and 
legalize a moral wrong. Many ways and means 
have been suggested and adopted to bring the 



"10 INTRODUCTION. 

ceaseless agitation of tliis question to an end, 
but without many bright prospects of success. 
The clouds still hover around the political 
horizon, and the mutterings of the distant 
thunder indicate and tell too plainly that the 
storm is only gathering new strength to burst 
with renewed fury. The real difficulty of 
maintaining quiet on this subject lies far deeper 
than most of men are willing to admit; it lies 
in the conscience of men ; it is not so much in 
head as in heart. The whole truth on the sub- 
ject may be expressed in a few words. A large 
number of our brethren at the North are con- 
scientiously opposed to Slavery ; their opposition 
arises from principle, but they are living under 
a social compact — the Constitution — which they 
believe sanctions a great wrong in sustaining it ; 
they believe they are doing wrong. It is natural, 
it is right for every man to free himself as soon as 
possible, and by proper means, from all unlaw- 
ful contracts. Xow if we can succeed in con- 
vincing our Northern brethren that they are 
not doinir wroiiG: in maintainino; the Constitu- 



INTRODUCTION. 11 

tion — ill otlier words, tliat it does not })roteet a 
system, sinful in itself, then we will have attained 
our end. There may be a possibility tliat the 
system is right, and that those wlio earry their ^. 
opposition to sueh an extent as will result in 
much greater evils, may be wrong. This is the 
point to be examined. In pursuing our object, 
it will be necessary to have a standard to which 
we can appeal; some rule by which all ques- 
tions of social and personal duty must be tried. 
This will lead to an examination of the Scriptures 
upon the question at issue ; an examination of 
the "higher law;" the relation of Church 
and State ; what we owe to God, and what is 
due to human authority; when it is right to obey 
God rather than men, and many other questions 
in which political theologians lead their ad- 
mirers astray. These things must be examined 
into first. Then the foundation of all the re- 
lations of life, such as husband and wife, pa- 
rent and child, ruler and ruled, citizen of the 
country and member of Christ's Church, Master 
and Slave. We will touch briefly on the origin 



12 INTRODUCTION. 

of servitude, the order tliat characterizes all of 
God's works, and that His ^\ord, or His com- 
mandments, laws or whatever we may call them,, 
are made to suit the varied relations which men 
sustain to them and to each other in their va- 
rious relations and capacities. We may em- 
brace some other topics in a general way, but 
our main design is to reach the question, "Is 
Slavery sinful in itself*?" That it may be con- 
ducted in "meekness of wisdom,'' produce 
peace, remove doubt from the minds of lovers 
of their God and country, and increase the 
happiness of both races, is our devout desire 
and humble prayer. 



IS SLAVERY A SIN IN ITSELF? 



CHAPTER I. 

RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 

Max is a dependent being. He did not cre- 
ate himself; his life is dependent on the will of 
another. He must go out of himself for com- 
plete happiness. Every human being comes in- 
to the world without knowledge. The senses 
gradually come into active operation ; that of 
hunger is probably the strongest that is felt for 
some time; the infant becomes a child, the 
child a boy, and the boy a man. Still, throuG^h 
all his years of growth, he is learning from the 
objects with which he is surrounded ; he gets a 
knowledge of natural things, that is, from those 
things which come wnthin the range of his senses; 
but his duty to God and men must be learned from 
another source. This can only be learned from 
the Bible. Men have never learned anything 
like correct views of their duty to God and to 
one another, in those countries where they are 
destitute of the light of divine revelation. 



14 RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 

Hence, it is only in Christian countries that men 
understand their relation to each other. And 
in Christian lands where men refuse to take the 
Bible for their guide, they are constantly going 
astray; advocating error; pro^^agating false 
systems of morals, and disturbing the peace of 
society by their wild speculative theories. 
Many, even in Christian lands, have adopted for 
the rule of their conduct, what is called utility 
or expediency ; but it is plain that this rule will 
be fluctuating ; there is very little certainty, 
when or where it should be applied; what one 
man would consider right, another would think 
a flagrant wrong; what one man would advocate 
as useful, another would oppose as highly injuri- 
ous ; what one would consider exj^edient, an- 
other would disapprove as very unwise. One 
man's knowledge is much more extensive and 
thorough than another's. The minds of no two 
men are exactly alike in all respects ; nor do 
two men always agree in every particular. From 
the great variety of mental ability, from 
the diff'erent degrees of knowledge, and from 
many other circumstances, it must be plain to 
the reader that the law founded on expediency 
or utility, would have to be varied in every in- 
stance of its application, to suit the capacities 



RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. 15 

and conditions of its subjects. The principle is 
self-destructive ; it would have to vary. But the 
idea of a law or standard, an authoritative rule 
of action, must be uniform^ or it becomes an 
exception^ and not a general rule. In plain 
terms, every man's will would have to be his law, 
which would set every man at full liberty to do 
as he pleased, independent of his Maker. All 
nations have some standard by which they are 
governed in civil matters. The courts of justice 
are influenced by the decisions of past times; 
by the opinion of some distinguished jurist. 
The legislative body enacts rules or laws, to 
govern and direct the conduct of the citizen in 
his civil relations. The executive is governed 
by the decisions of the court. Good usage es- 
tablishes a certain manner of speaking, so that 
there is a rule or standard, that is final in all le- 
gislative, judicial, and linguistic controversies. 
There must also be a final arbiter to settle all 
disputes on moral and spiritual subjects, or it is 
not worth the time and labor to form an opin- 
ion, or a judgment on any question in morals. 
It is not necessary that we should pursue this 
subject any further, as all candid minds will see 
at once the importance of having something 
>vhich we all recognize as authority. The Bible, 



1Q RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 

then, is our standard ; to this we desire to bring 
all questions m morals ; by this we wish to try 
every relation in life ; by its teachings we are 
willing to abide, and by it to stand or fall. We 
appeal not to the prejudice, the passions or cor- 
rupt conscience of men ; for conscience cannot 
determine the moral quality of an action unless 
it have some rule by which to settle that point. 
The conscience of the heathen do not rebuke 
them for murdering their infant oflfspring, or 
their parents, disabled by age ; while the Bible 
expressly says, "Thou shalt not kill." Neither 
do we recognize the principle of sincerity as the 
rule of correct action in morals. A man may 
be sincere, and prove it by murdering me. That 
does not make the action right. The heathen 
is sincere, no doubt, when he bows dowm and 
worships the idol ; but so far from making idola- 
try right, it only proves that the devotee vio- 
lates the first commandment of the moral law, 
" Thou shalt have no other Gods before me." 
Sincerity will not, then, do forthe rule ; a man 
may be sincere and yet be doing wrong. The 
motive may be bad and the action turn out 
good; but then the actor loses the approval of 
a clear conscience. To make an action good, 
the motive from which such action springs 



RULE OP FAITH AND PRACTICE. H 

must be in acnorflance with the revealed law of 
God, or it is of no value. We are, then, forced 
to the conclusion that the Bible, the whole 
Bible, and nothing but the Bible is the safe rule 
of action; and however we may attempt to 
conceal the fact, our practice is greatly inilu- 
enced by our theoretical views of truth, and 
our religious opinons control our actions to a 
much irreater extent than we are willin*]: to ad- 
mit. We then take the Bible — not a paitizan 
view of it, but as a harmonious whole — as our 
chart and compass; believing, if we do not 
throw it overboard, it will conduct us safely in- 
to the haven of truth. To its sacred pages let us 
then repair to learn what duty God requires of 
us; what He has done for our race. Let us ex- 
amine with care, judge with coolness and im- 
partiality, study with patience and perseverance; 
but above all, bow with implicit reverence to 
the authority of God ; for He can never err while 
"there is not a just man on earth that liveth 
and sinneth not." "The human heart is deceit- 
ful above all things, and desperately wicked.'* 



B^ 



18 THE RELATION OF CHURCn AND STATE. 



CHAPTER II. 

THE RELATION OF CDURCH AND STATE. 

The Jewisli Dis;pciis;ition was a tlieocracy; 

tliat is, Jehovah was llie lieacl of the State, as 

well as the Lord of the conscience. From this 

circumstance, idolatry was punished by the civil 

maixistrate, because it involved treason against 

the reigning sovereign. (See Deut. xiii: 6, 8, 9.) 

*'If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy 

son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, 

or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice 

%:-e, saying, Let ns go and serve other gods — 

thou shalt not consent unto liim ; neither shall 

thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, 

ncither'shalt thou conceal hi n ; but thou shalt 

surely hill him; thy hand shall be first npon 

liim to put him to death, and afterward all the 

people." God often inilicted severe punishment 

on the Jews for the sin of idolatry, by giving 

them up to the power and dominion of t.he 

lieathen, by whom they were surrounded. 

Wlicn Christ came, he fulfilled all the pro- 
phecies, concerning the Messiah, contained in 



THR RELATION OF CIIURCn AXD STATE. 19 

the 0](1 TestniucMit. I[(^ i eiiiove'd ilie ceromonial 
]>:irt of tlie i\l()s;iio l;i\v by liis cU'.-itli, and csiab- 
•lislRMl ])Iain, siiiipk', and sj>i!iiual ordiimnccs in 
tbeir place. Tlie theocracy of the Jewish dis- 
jjensation j).isscd away; and Clirist, as iJic great 
law-giver of tlie world, sejtaratcd between ihe 
civil ami ecclesiastical powers, ami pointed out, 
by his word, teaching, and cxani!)!e, the appro- 
pi'iate province of each. Tlui great princij)le 
'of Christianity, as uni'oldcd and explained by 
Clirisr, is: Njii-lutcrfcrsnce in jyolltlcs on the 
part of the lalnhters of his f/ospel^ and ohcxU- 
eace to the cioll autlioritles under lohlch his 
followers Uv^e. To liis teachings let us now 
aj^peal ; to his perfect example let us look, in 
Oi'd.'r that we niiy have clear and scriptural 
views of <»ar relations io God, as the moral^ind 
responsible beings ot his righteous govcMnment, 
and also, that we may learn clearly what duties 
we owe, as Cin-istians, to the civil authorities 
undei- which we live. 

We will begin with civil duties, as the lionor, 
reverence, worship), and obedience which we 
owe to Goil, fall m:)re naturally and clearly 
under the teachings of theological and moi-al 
science. Wli at, then, are tiiC great }»rinfiples 
taught by Christ, toaching the relation of 



20 THE RELATION OP CHURCH AND STATE. 

Church and State? He recognized the prin- 
ciple that civil courts are to settle, between 
citizens, all disputes about property. We are 
informed by Luke (xii : 13, 14) that "one of 
the company said unto liim, Master, speak to 
my brother, that he may divide the inheri- 
tance with me." Here, then, the question of 
settling the riglits of property was faii-ly and 
plainly presented to Christ for his decision. A 
man, in a public company, requests that he may 
interpose his authority, as a teacher and pro- 
phet, to make his brother give him that part of 
the property to which he feels that he is justly 
entitled. Does the Saviour turn aside from his 
business to decide the matter between the dis- 
putants ? No ; but replies by asking the ques- 
tion, "Man, who made me a judge or divider 
over you?" Who made me a judge to decide 
civil causes? Who a})p!)ii)ted me an umpire to 
divide inheritances ? This is not the object of 
my mission into the woi Id. I did not come to 
take the civil magistrate's office out of his 
hands. " My kingdom is not of this world." 
^John xviii : 3.'->-o6.) Tiit^ iiolc of Bt'Zi on this 
passage is so appi'opr.ale, that we gi\e it at 
length : " Ciirist woidd not, un- three causes, 
be a judge to divide inheritances. First, for 



THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 21 

that he would not cherish the carnal opinion 
which the Jews had of the Messiah. Secondly, 
for that he would distinguish the civil govern- 
ment from the ecclesiastical. Thirdly, to teach 
us to beware of them which abuse the show of 
the gospel, and also the name of ministers, to 
their own private advantage." Dr. Whitty 
makes the following remark on this passage — 
viz : " It is probable that Christ refused to take 
this office upon him, . . . chiefly because he had 
but little time remaining, which he could betttr 
spend in dividing to them the word of life, and 
promoting their eternal interest." Dr. Scott 
says of this comment of Dr. Whitty's : " Tliis 
reason is at least very forcible, in all similar 
cases, with ministers of the gospel, if they duly 
consider the shortness and uncertainty of life, 
the state of the world, the w^orth of souls, and 
the immense importance and arduousness of 
their work." 

We have given these extracts to show that 
one interpretation of this important event in 
the life of Christ is not singular, but has been 
the view taken by the best Biblical scholars. 
Beza, however, gives the clearest view of the 
passage. " The carnal opinion which the Jews 
had of the Messiah," mentioned by him, was 



22 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

that the Messiah would appear as a great tem- 
poral prince, deliver them from the civil do- 
minion of the Romans, establish his throne in 
Jerusalem, as the capital of his earthly king- 
dom, and raise them to a degree of splendor 
and power far beyond anything they had seen 
in the palmiest days of David and Solomon. 
It was evidently this belief of the nature of 
Christ's mission which prompted the mother of 
Zebedee's children to make the singular request 
of him, as narrated in Matthew xx: 20-29. 
The favor asked was that her two sons might 
sit, the one on his right hand and the other on 
his left, in his kingdom. The same opinion, the 
temporal kingdom of Christ, with places of 
honor and profit, was in the minds of the two 
disciples on the morning of his resurrection, as 
they were going to Emmaus ; they were sad, 
T)ut the cause of that sadness is clearly devel- 
oped in the declaration of one of them to Jesus, 
" We trusted that it had been he w^hich should 
have redeemed Israel." 

These passages show the expectations of the 
Jews about the temporal nature of his kingdom. 
That he did not encourage -this view, may be 
seen by the reader referring to Matthew xx: 
20-27; and Luke xxiv: 13-31 ; and John xviii: 
-33-36. 



THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 28 

Christ also clearly distinguished between the 
duties we owe to God and civil rulers. It can- 
not be plead in favor of State establishments, 
that such an amalgamation of religion and poli- 
tics is countenanced by the example of Christ, 
from the fact that he paid the temple-tax when 
demanded by the proper person. The Jewish 
disj^ensation liad not then closed ; all the cere- 
monies of the Mosaic ritual were still in opera- 
tion. It was one object of Christ's mission 
"to fulfill all righteousness;" that is, to con- 
form to every part of the law. The theocracy 
had not come to an end : Jehovah was still the 
recognized head of the State, as well as the ob- 
ject of true worship. If we keep this last fact 
in view, we can see the beauty and force of the 
Saviour's argument that " the children are 
free ; " that is, exempt from supporting the 
government by pecuniary aid. "And when 
they were come to Cajjernaum, they that re- 
ceived tribute-money came to Peter and said. 
Doth not your master pay tribute ? He saith. 
Yes. And when he was come into the house, 
Jesus prevented him, saying, Bimon, of whom 
do the kino-s of the earth take custom or tri- 
bute? Of their own children or strangers? 
Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Then are 



24 THE RELATIOX OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

the children free." (Matt, xvii: 24-26.) His 
argument is this: Kings of the earth do not 
take tribute of their own children, but of their 
subjects. "I am the Son of God — the civil 
ruler of the Jews ; therefore, I am not bound 
to pay tribute." He argued that he was ex- 
empt from paying the temple-tax, not because 
he was the son of Csesar, but because he was 
the Son of God. Lest any should take excep- 
tions to his refusal to pay, he waives this privi- 
lege of exemption ; but, having no money, he 
ordered Peter to go to the sea, which was close 
by, and cast in his hook, awd in the mouth of 
the first fish which he caught, he would find a 
shekel — enough to pay them both. " Notwith- 
standing, lest we should offend them, go thou 
to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the 
fish that first coraeth up ; and when thou hast 
opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of 
money: that take and give unto them for me 
and thee." (Matt, xvii : 21.) "By which ex- 
ample Christ teacheth us to avoid the scandal 
and sinister suspicions of men, though they be 
groundless, with some detriment to ourselves — 
especially when we have not means to convince 
them." * When, however, the question of pay- 

* Whitty. 



THE RELATION OF ClIURCn AND STATE. 25 

iiio" tribute to the civil ruler of the country was 
presented to him, he gave a different answer. 
The Pharisees and Herodians asked him the 
question, and desired an answer : " Tell us,, 
therefore, what thinkest thou ? Is it lawful to- 
give tribute unto Ca-sar or not ':' He per 
ceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt 
ye me, ye hypocrites? . . . He said unto them, 
Render unto Ga'sar tlie things which are Caesar's, 
and unto God the things that are God's." 
(Matt, xxii: 17-21.) To understand tlie ques- 
tion here propounded, we must look at the 
character of those who asked it. It is stated 
by the sacrod historian, (vs. 15, 10,) that the 
Pharisees "sent out unto him (Christ) their 
disciples with the Herodians." These two sects 
were of different opinions on the controverted 
point of paying tribute to the Roman emperor. 
The Pharisees inferred from the law of Moses, 
(Deut. xvii : 15,) — "Thou shalt in any wise set 
him (a king) over tliee whom the Lord thy God 
shall clioose ; one from among thy brethren 
shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayst not 
set a sTEAXdER over thee which is not thy bro- 
ther" — that it was unlawful to pay tribute to 
the Romans, though forcibly reduced to sub- 
jection under them. This view of the matter 





26 THE RELATIOX OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

suited the rebellious and refractory nature of 
the Jewish ptOjjle, and was the more popular 
doctrine. The Herodians took their name from 
the fact that they were strongly attached to the 
interests of Herod's family. They w^ere strongly 
tinctured with infidelity; made their profession 
of religion subservient to their political inter- 
ests. Hence, they thought that it was right to 
pay the tribute to Cttsar. The design was to- 
get Christ to settle the dispute between them, 
and thereby ensnare him. Had he given his 
opinion on the side of the Pharisees, then the 
Herodians w-ould have accused and delivered 
him to Pilate, the Roman governor, to be 
treated as a rebel or traitor. Had he ijiven his 
opinion simply to pay tribute to Caesar, then the 
Pharisees would have accused him, before the 
people, as being an enemy to their civil liberties, 
and teaching contrary to the law of ]Moses, and 
requiring passive obedience to the heathen 
magistrates. They evidently supposed that it 
was impossible for him to answer their question 
without encountering a serious difficulty. Christ 
gave them to understand that he was fully 
aw^are of their designs. " He perceived their 
wickedness;" yet he chose to answer their in- 
(piiry, as an important principle was to be en- 



TUH KKLATIOX OF ClIURCII AND STATE. 2T 

•g'rafted on his re}>ly. " HaA'ing, therefore, 
obtained the coin in whieli the tribute was paid, 
and drawn them to acknowledge that it was 
stamped with Caesar's image and name, he ta- 
citly inferred that Ca'sar was the civil ruler to 
whom God had subjected them ; and, therefore, 
as they derived the protection and the benefits 
of the magistracy from him — of which fact the 
circulation and currency of his coinage was an 
evidence — they were not only allowed, but re- 
quired, to render to him both tribute and civil 
honor and obedience. .Vt the same time, they 
must render to God that honor, love, worshij), 
and service, which his commandments claimed, 
and which were justly due to him ; and must 
not disobey him out of regard to any earthly 
sovereign. His answer condemned equalh' the 
refractory spirit of the Pharisees, who scrupled 
obedience to the Roman emperors, under pre- 
tence of religion, and the time-serving Plerod- 
ians, who made a compliment of their religion 
to their prince, and conformed to many heathen 
customs to please him ; and it is, moreover, of 
universal application and replete with practical 
instruction."" "^^ "Christians must obey their 
magistrates, although they be wicked and ex- 

* Scott. 



28 THE llELATIOX OF CnURCU AND STATE 

tortioners, but so . . . that the authority of God 
may remain safe to him, and his honor be not 
diminished."! These extracts contain the proper 
principles on which Christians arc to act — viz: 
To honor, obey, and respect the civil authority 
under which their lot, in the providence of God, 
is cast. The other parts of the Bible are in 
harmony with the teachino;s of Christ. 

First, civil government is a divine institution, 
that is, it is the will of God that it should exist. 
" Let every soul be subject unto the higher pow- 
ers, for there is no power but of God ; the powers 
that be are ordainerl of God." (Rom. xiii: 1.) 

Secondly, while government is of God, the 
form of it is of men. The Scripture, no where 
enjoins it on men to have one and only o;zeform 
of civil government. The same kind of civil 
government will not suit every community; but 
the Bible does lay down certain principles 
which are applicable to rulers and subjects, un- 
der every form in which governments exist. 
That this position is the correct one, is plain 
from the varied teachings of the New Testa- 
ment. Christ taught civil obedience to Caesar, 
the emperor of the Roman Empire ; Paul recog- 
nizes the various forrus of human government 



THE RELATION OF CIIURCn AND STATE. 29 

AN licii lie " exhorts tliat supplications, pi-ayers. 
and intercession . . . l)e made for all men ; for 

KINGS, and ALL THAT AllE IN AUTHORITY." (I 

Tim. ii: 1, 2.) Peter in his first epistle, 2d chap- 
ter, endorses the position when he says, verses 
13, 14, 17, "Submit yourselves to every ordi- 
nance of man, for the Lord's sake ; whether it 
be to the king as supreme, or unto governoks, 
as unto them that are sent by liim for the pun- 
ishment of evil doers, and for the praise of 
them that do well. "Honor the king." From 
the fact that the Jewish State was a theocracyj 
the civil magistrate had many rights in relation 
to religion under that dispensation, Avhich have 
been repealed by the great law giver, Jesus 
Christ. It was necessary under that form of 
the Church and State, that the civil magistrate 
sliould be a member of the Church ; but this is 
not an essential qualification now, since Church 
and State are cleaily separated ; still, it would 
be better if all, both rulers and ruled, were 
true Christians. Much information, and many 
and useful lessons might be learned by civil 
rulers of the present day, from a careful study 
of the lives of eminent men, whose lives and 
mictions are recorded in the Ijible. 

Thirdly, it is the dutv of the civil authoritv 
c* 



30 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AXD STATE. 

to punish evil-doers, and protect the sober and 
quiet citizens in the enjoyment of all civil rights 
granted by the constitution of the country; not 
merely to tolerate^ but to give full religious 
liberty to all those who contribute to its sup- 
port, obey its laws, and defend it against the at- 
tacks of hostile governments. From these prin- 
ciples naturally arise the inquiry, How far are 
Christians to obey civil authority '? Hence we 
will now examine into the nature and extent of 
that obedience which the Bible commands us to 
render to our rulers. 

Fourthly, obedience to civil authority is limi- 
ted, and there are cases in which disobedience 
is a duty. This position is clear, from the very 
nature of civil government; it being established 
for the benefit of those entering into the social 
compact. Rulers are "• sent by Him (God) for 
the punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise 
of them that do well." When, therefore, the 
civil authority fail to punish crimes against the 
community, when it fails to carry out the pro- 
visions of the compact, when it refuses to pro- 
tect the good and obedient citizen in his con- 
stitutional rights, it perverts the end of its or- 
ganization, and may be lawfully changed or 
modified so as to more eft'ectuallv secure the 



THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 31 

protection of the persons and property of those 
forming tlie compact. The ordinance of civil 
government being of divine appointment, whik' 
the/br;« is left to human wisdom, a communi- 
ty may change tlie form of their government 
from a monarchy to a representative, or an oh- 
garchy or limited monarchy, to any other form 
that they may deem best suited to their situa- 
tion or circumstances. A monarchy may be 
best adapted to certain states of society ; a 
limited monarchy may suit another state, a 
o-overnment bv the nobilitv may suit a third, 
and a representative or republican form may be 
best adapted to a fourth, so that whatever form 
is adopted by the community in whicli we live, 
it certainly is the duty of every Christian to 
" obey the ^^owers that be," " to submit to 
every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake,-' 
until that is changed or abolished by those who 
are governed. This obedience is limited by the 
written constitution of the country, or by 
known and established usage, or Avhen the civil 
authority clearly transcends its authority and 
requires obedience to laws clearly at war with 
the revealed will of God. In the United States 
there can be but little difficulty in ascertaining 
what is the law of the land. Tlie les^islative 



32 THE EELATIOX OP CHURCn AND STATE. 

body makes laws, and it is the duty of the judi- 
ciary to expound those laws, and whether they 
are constitutional or not. The Supreme court 
is a disinterested party, and when it decides de- 
liberately and settles some great constitutional 
question, then we doubt the piety of that man 
who sets up his individual o})inion against it : 
but more especially is this ^^•rong in the am- 
bassadors of Christ to be the "first to speak evil 
of the rulers of their people." These things ap- 
pear to be plain and easily understood by those 
who desire to know and do their duty toward 
the civil authorities of their country. There 
are cases, however, in which disobedience to civil 
authority is right; that is in accordance with 
the teachings of the Bible. The first example 
of disobedience to which we refer, was that of 
the midwives in refusing to execute the bloody 
and murderous command of Pharaoh, king of 
Egypt. (See Ex. i: 10-22.) "The king of Egypt 
spake to the Ileljrew midwives: When ye do 
the oflice, a midwife to the Hebrew women . . .if 
it be a son, then ye shall kill him. But if it be a 
daughter, then she shall live; but the midwives 
feared God and did not as the king of Egypt 
commanded them, but saved the men children 
alive." Thev were right in thus refusing: obe- 



THE HEL\T10N OF CHUUCH AND STATK. 80 

iliciice, for tlic law of God says expressly, 
■'•Thou shalt not kill."" For this ooiiscientioiis 
respect for the authority of God, they received 
the king's approval. There is a similar case re- 
corded, (Kings xxi: 5-15,) in which disobedience 
to the commands of tlie reigning sovereign 
would have been justifiable, but \\here obedi- 
ence secured the murder of Nal)oth, a peaceful 
citizen, and the consequences were most disas- 
trous to Ahab, he being slain in battle and the 
dogs licking his blood in the same place they 
had licked uj) the innocent blood of Naboth ; 
tlie dogs also eating tlie tlesh of Jezel)el who 
had been active in laying the j'lot to secure the 
death of Xaboth. 

The second case of disobedience is that of 
Micaiah refusing to prophesy falseh/^ and thus 
flatter the ambitious designs of Ahab, his lawful 
sovereign. All the false prophets said to the 
king, "go up, for the Lord shall deliver it 
(Ramoth Gilead) into the hand of the king.'' 
Ahab not being fully satisfied in his own mind, 
and at the request of Jehosephat, king of 
Judah, sent for Micaiah, but he was too true to 
the cause of truth to deceive the king ; al- 
though he well knew that he would suft'er for 
his faithfulness. Accordin^rlv Ahab was en- 



34 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

raged, and sent the true prophet back to the 
governor of the city witli the mandate, "Thus 
saith the king : Put this fellow in the prison 
and feed hira with bread of affliction, and with 
water of affliction, till I come in peace." (See 
1 Kings, 22 ch. God requires of his ministers 
to speak his word even to kings; to make known 
his will to men, whether they will hear or 
whether they will forbear ; to make it dnown 
faithfully, and leave the consequences to Him in 
whose hand is the hearts of kings. The third 
case we notice, will be found in the 6th chapter 
of Daniel. This decree involved the principle of 
prohibiting the worship of the true God. Da- 
rius the king, under the iniiuence of his chief 
men, signed a decree or law, "That whosoever 
shall ask a petition of any god or man, for 
thirty days, save of thee, O king, shall be cast 
into the den of lions.'- The design of the 
chief men in securing the j^assage of this law, 
was to entrap and destroy Daniel ; he, however, 
refused obedience to this unrighteous act, going 
regularly into his chamber three times a day. 
" prayed, and gave thanks to his God, as he did 
aforetime." The attempt was made to inflict the 
penalty, but the "Lord sent his angel and 
stopped the mouths of the lions." He came ofl 



THE IIELATIOX OF CIIURCn AND STATE. 35 

unharmed, thus exemplifying tlie declaration, 
"Who shall harm you if ye he followers of that 
which is good? (1 Pel. iii: 13.) This was in- 
terfering with the private worship of one of 
the best citizens of the kingdom, and expressly 
interfering with a matter over which civil rulers- 
have no control. Daniel's religious opinion and 
practice did not interfere with the discharge of 
his ofHcial duties, or render him a rebel in any 
way against the authority of the king. The 
law originated in envy, and ended in the destruc- 
tion of its unwise and rash authors. 

The fourth example, will be found in the 2d 
chapter of Daniel. Xebuchadnezzar, king of 
Babylon, seems to have conceived the absurd 
idea, so often advocated and acted upon since 
his day, of establishing uniformifij in religious 
things by the force of law. The majority of 
his subjects were idolators, but in his conquests 
over the Jews, he had carried some of them as 
captives to Babylon, Init they carried their re- 
ligion with them. Still, while there was a va- 
riety of languages, nations, and people in his 
great empire, he wislied to establish one reliction. 
Accordinolv he erected a oTeat imao-e in the plain 
of Dura, and issued his royal mandate, that on 
the giving of a particular and public signal, all 



36 THE RELATION OP CHURCH AXD STATE. 

peoples, na' ions, and languages were required 
to fall down and worship the golden image that 
the king had set, with the penalty annexed^ 
"Whoso falleth not down and worshipeth, shall 
the same hour be cast into the midst of a burn- 
ing fiery furnace." The signal was given, but 
the three Jews, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed- 
nego, refused obedience to the king's decree; 
they were reported to his majesty, arraigned 
and condemned, but came off unharmed, and 
secured a law recognizing their God and respect 
for him. " Wherefore, I make a decree, that 
every people, nation, and language, which 
speak anything amiss against the God of Shad- 
rach, IMeshach and Abednego, shall be cut in 
pieces, and their houses shall be made a dung- 
hill ; because there is no other God that can 
deliver after this sort." These three noble 
Jews refused obedience to this decree, because it 
required them to violate the plain command- 
ments of God, viz: "Thou shalt have no other 
gods before me." And "Thou shalt not make 
unto thyself any graven miage ; thou shalt not 
bow down to them nor serve them." 

The last case which we refer to for an illus- 
tration of our proposition, is that of the in- 
spired apostles. They were preaching the doc- 



THE RELATION OP CIIURCn AXD STATE. 37 

trine of Christ's resurrection from the dead. 
]ilany of the people believed and embraced the 
gospel as the true system of religion, and that 
Jesus Christ was really what lie claimed to be,, 
the true Messiah. The Pharisees were the great- 
formalists of that day ; the zealots for the rites 
and ceremonies of the Mosaic law; the Saddu- 
cees were the practical infidels; they rejected 
the idea of the future existence of the souls and 
bodies of men in a glorified state ; they denied 
also the existence of angels. The civil officers 
of the Jewish nation, at the commencement of 
the New Testament Dispensation, were partly 
from both sects. The Pharisees were opposed 
to the spread of the gos2:»el because they be- 
lieved Christ to be an impostor; the Sadducees 
opposed it because it taught the doctrine of the 
resurrection, which they did not believe. They 
united their authority to stop the apostles from 
preaching the gospel. They arrested, tried and 
condemned them, and forbid them from propaga- 
ting the doctrine. To this unjust decree, the 
apostle ]'efased to yield obedience. The civil 
rulers " commanded them (the apostles) not to 
speak at all, nor teach in the name of Jesus; but 
Peter and John answered and said unto them. 
Whether it be right in the sight of God to 

D 



38 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AXD STATE. 

hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye, 
(Acts iv: 18-19). Here, then, was a case in 
which they were to obey God rather than men. 

These exami^les will suffice to show in what 
cases Christians are justifiable in refusing obedi- 
ence to the decrees of civil rulers. The cases 
we have enumerated involve the following 
points, viz : Murder, lying or refusing to 
prophesy falsely, refusing to worship idols, try- 
ing to forbid or prevent the private worship of 
God, and to prevent the preaching of an impor- 
tant doctrine of the gospel. 

In all these cases, however, there is one re- 
markable trait of uniformity in those who re- 
fused obedience, viz: They simply refused 
compliance with these unjust laws or command- 
ments; left their cause in the hands of Him "who 
judgeth righteously. " They did not revile 
or abuse the rulers ; but bore patiently the 
punishment they inflicted, and in every instance 
they conquered by their meek and patient suf- 
ferings. The general principle may be drawn 
from these things, that we are, as Christians, 
bound to obey the "powers that be," unless 
they require of us something that is plainly and 
without diS2Mte, contrary to the revealed will of 
God. Not every imaginary hobby will justify 



THE RELATION OF CHURCn AND STATE. 89 

disobedience to civil authority. All abuse, or 
reviling of the rulers of our people is condemned 
by both the letter and spirit of true Christi- 
anity. Obedience to an unjust law is frequently 
the best way to destroy its effect, or to obtain its 
repeal. Ci^il rulers, although they may not 
be religious men, are greatly influenced by the 
exhibition of a ])roper Christian spirit. They 
highly respect the Christian character and con- 
sistent piety of those over Avhom they rule. 
While it is a principle of human nature, in its 
corrupt state, that it loves oppositioii in order 
to justify its errors, if it meets with no oppo- 
sition, then it frequently becomes ashamed of its 
errors and cheerfully corrects them. We think 
these observations are j ustified by every man who 
has been a close observer of men and things. 
" Let your moderation be known to all men," 
is an exhortation which should be praticed by all 
Cliristians. 

In the preceding portion of this chapter, we 
have pointed out and established the following 
propositions, as containing the true scriptural 
doctrine of the nature, source, and extent of 
civil authority. We will embody these points 
in a few short axioms, so that the reader may 
have a compendium or short summary, by 



40 THE RELATIOX OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

which he will be enabled to take in at a glance 
the teachings of the Bible on this point, and 
easily retain them in his memory. 

First, there was a nnion of Churcli and State, 
under the Old Testament dispensation. There 
was uniformity of faith among the Jews, only 
when they departed from the faith of their 
fathers and went and worshipped idols. 

From this union of Church and State, the ci\il 
magistrate had considerable power over the 
matters of religion. 

Secondly, That economy passed away with 
the obedience and death of Christ ; He being the 
law-giver of his church, separated the civil and 
political authorities, and established the great 
principle of non-interference with the forms 
of hiiraan government he foinid established. 
From an oversight of this great principle, from 
often making attempts to establish a theocracy 
to unite Church and State, under the New Tes- 
tament dispensation, have originated most of 
the great errors and wrongs, with which our 
world has been cursed. There are several es- 
sential errors, and those of great consequence, 
growing out of v/rong views of this subject. 
The union of Church and State, leads to the idea 
at once, that it m.av work well and 2:0 on v\ ith- 



THE EELATIOX OF CnURCH AND STATE. 41 

out any jarring of the parts. There must be 
uniformity of religious opinions. Tliis drives 
the conscientious dissenter from takino- any 
part or interest in the affairs of his government; 
because a man must first adopt the peculiar creed 
of the State before he is eligible to office in the 
State. It has, in all Popish countries led, and 
will lead even in some Protestant States, to the 
abominable doctrine of persecution for con- 
science sake. The fl\ct that a king, emperor, or 
any other great civil dignitary, is converted and 
professes the name of Christ and unites with his 
church, no more gives such a dignitary the right 
to dictate, or regulate the spiritual affairs of 
the Church, than any foreigner coming into that 
king or emperor's dominions, and adopting or 
embracing the civil laws of the land, would 
give him the right to usurp the authority of 
the king. The cases are similar. The king- 
would tell such a foreigner, that the more fact of 
his coming into his State and adopting its laws 
and customs, gave him no right to the throne. 
This vv^ould be true; but it is equally true that 
the king has no more power in the church, than 
any common layman. lie is supreme in civil 
affairs, but he is inferior to Christ's lawful min- 
isters in the church.. Honor and respect is due 



42 THE RELITIOX OF CnURCH AND STATE. 

to every one in his proper station. Pi'obably 
the Christian church never was injured more 
than by the conversion of Constantine the 
Great. He immediately assumed the leadship 
of the church, as he was of the State ; divided 
oif his empire into religious, as well as civil 
provinces or districts; appointed religious of- 
ficers over them as he did over the civil districts; 
and here, no doubt, originated that great and 
uuscriptural system, called diocesian episcopacy. 
The Romish hierarchy was modeled after the 
same plan, and the oppressions, the disabilities, 
the persecutions, the blood-shed, the martyr- 
doms, and other evils which have grown up as 
the legitimate fruit of this spiritual boa-upas, 
united and backed by the sword of civil power, 
have shaded the world in darkness for more than 
one thousand years, and still retards and clogs 
the wheels of civilization, and carries confusion 
and mysticism in its mongrel train. So much 
for erroneous theories of Church and State uni- 
ted. Let each be supreme in its own legiti- 
mate sphere. The church is a divine institution. 
Her mission is to deal with the spiritual inter- 
ests of men ; to preach Christ crucified to a lost 
world ; to send the Bible in the native tongue of 
every people among them ; make known the 



THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 43 

way of salvation ; to expound the will of God ; 
teach men their duties in tlie various relations 
they sustain to each other in life; and enforce 
those duties and obedience to whom, as Chris- 
tians and men, they owe respect, by proper mo- 
tives. Physical force is not allowable by the 
Bible. The weapons of our warfare, are not 
carnal, but spiritual. *' My kingdom is not of 
this world ; if my kingdom were of this world, 
then would my servant fight, that I should not 
be delivered to the Jews, but now is my king- 
dom not from hence." (John xviii: 36.) "Put 
up again thy sword into his place ; for all they 
that take the sword, shall perish with the SAvord." 
(Math, xxvi: 52.). This denoted that those 
who are pi-ompt to fight and avenge their own 
cause, only bring mischief and death on them- 
selves. The history of the church for eighteen 
centuries, has exemplified that this truth was 
particularly designed for her benefit. When- 
ever she has closely adhered to her instructions, 
followed closely her own proper calling, she has 
prospered, honored by God, and respected by 
men. But whenever she has turned aside from 
her spiritual mission, she has been forsaken of 
God, and cursed by men. 

We have shown that Christians are allowed 



44 THE RELATION 0? CHURCH AND STATE. 

to disobey the unscriptural commands of civil 
rulers ; but this does not prove that it is right 
to use swords and rifles in defendino; our ima<>'i- 
nary wrongs. It was mainly owing to the use 
of the sword in the defence of their principles, 
that the Huguenots were driven from France, 
tmd the great Reformation proved an almost to- 
tal failure in that country. Men have their 
appropriate spheres; they sustain different re- 
lations in life. As Christians, they are bound 
to obey the revealed will of their Master ; as 
citizens of civil society, and members of the 
body politic, they may engage with their 
swords in the defence of civil liberty; but their 
sword in defence of their religious liberty is 
not of steel, but the truth of God'^s word. 
There are cases in which the civil and ecclesias- 
tical powers will come in conflict, because there 
are certain things which have a moral and politi- 
cal aspect. For instance, the matter of mar- 
riage is a relation having both a moral and po- 
litical side. Marriao-e between near relations 
is immoral and wrong; marrying more than one 
wife is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, 
therefore, the officers of the church have scrip- 
tural authority to exclude from the church in- 
cestuous persons and polygaraists. The civil au- 



THE RELATION OF CIIUKCH AND STATE. 45 

Uiorilies have a right to i)unis]i sucli offences; 
because tliey interfere with, and disturb the 
peace, purity and happiness of civihzed com- 
munities. This involves an im})ortant question 
now before our country's civil jurisdiction. 

We refer to the Mormons, settled on our 
Western frontier. They are heathens. They 
pretend that they are the only true Christians; 
yet reject Christ and the Bible ; expecting to 
be raised from the dead by their pretended 
prophet, Joe Smith. They are polygamists. 
This is about all the reli^-ion, or rather irrelia:ion 
they have. They reject the laws and repudiate 
the Constitution of the United States; and 
hence, we can only invite them civilly to con- 
form to the laws of the land, adopt our consti- 
tution, or in case they fail to comply, invite them 
to leave our territory. In case they refuse to 
do this, we must employ tlie resources of the 
nation in confining them to a particular locality, 
or send them out by force. The whole matter 
"clearly comes within the jurisdiction of the ci- 
vil authority of our nation. The Church of 
Christ has nothing to do with them. They are 
excluded, so long as they continue what they 
are. But we will probably resume this point in 
a future chapter. 



46 THE RELATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

There can be but little practical difficulty in 
settling the proper bounds of civil and eccle- 
siastical authority, where men possess the true 
spirit of Christ. The great difficulty arises from 
wicked, unconverted, ungodly and ambitious 
men entering the ministry of the Church, for 
the sake of promoting or carrying out their 
wicked plans, or gratifying their love of pow- 
er. So long as men remain what they are, such 
things will happen. Still, civil society is neces- 
sary, and we cannot dispense with it because 
there are a few thieves, murderers and forgers 
in our midst, and because one of these unprinci- 
pled villains get into some office of honor and 
profit. Neither can we dispense with the 
Church, because there occasionally appears a 
man bearing the name and external appearance 
of a minister of Jesus ; while it is plain that 
he has mistaken the place to which he belongs? 
and is really serving the enemy of all good, in- 
stead of the King of Peace. Both will con- 
tinue to the end of time, or as long as men are 
corrupt in heart and wrong in practice. If all 
men were really Christians, not nominally so, 
then there would be no necessity for courts, 
jails, penitentiaries, or even laws of any kind to 
protect the person and property of others. The 



THE RELATION OF CHURCIT AND STATE. 47 

State, then, in fine, protects the person and prop- 
erty of all her citizens ; secures to them the 
enjoyment of all their constitutional rights ; 
protects Christians in the enjoyment of their 
religious rights; makes laws to protect the good 
and to punish evil-doers. The Church sustains 
her ministry to expound the Bible, to teach her 
members what are their duties, not only as 
Christians, but as citizens ; to point out the na- 
ture and extent of their obligations to the State, 
and the proper motives from which obedience 
to the powers that be are to be derived; the 
consequences of disobedienc?, and disgrace and 
infamy that such a course brings on true piety. 
Human government is an ordinance of divine 
aj^pointment ; so is the Church an institution of 
divine authority,|haviug the Bible for her stat 
ute book, and[her great King for her examjDle. 



48 SUBORDINATIOX— OEDER IN GOD'S WORKS. 



CHAPTER III. 

SUBORDINATION, OR ORDER IN ALL GOD'S WORKS. 

A system of complete equality does not seem 
to be in accordance Avitli the providence of 
God, or with the Bible. Though not a scrip- 
tural expression, still it is in harmony both with 
Providence and Sci'ipture, that 

" Order is lloaven's first law ; and tliis confessed, 
Some must and ^vill be greater tlian the rest." 

If we commence the examination, and go 

through with the angelic, animal and vegetable 

kingdoms, Ave will find that a gradation runs 

through each class, from the highest to the 

lowest. Mutual dependence of all God's works, 

forms the harmony of the universe. The great 

Jehovah stands as the self-existent and mighty 

Creator of all things. He has no "equal; in 

Him all things live and move and have their 

beino'. To Him all created beino's owe everv 

power, or capacity of enjoyment which they 

severally possess. He has adjusted all the 

parts of his works in such a manner that there 



SrBOUDIXATIOX— ()Rl)l-:« IX GOD^S M'ORKS. 49 

is a I'OLi'ular uTaclation from tlie liigliest Arcli- 
Aiiii'd, down to the lowest Avorm of tlie dust. 
We read of "Micliael the Arch-Angel." ( Jnde 
9 eh.) Christ will descend to raise the dead 
and judge the world. "With a shout, with 
the voice of the Arch-Angel, and with the 
truni]) of God." (1st Thes. iv: 10.) Angels 
are often alluded to, in various parts of the 
Biljle. Again, the Apostle speaking of this 
difference among the angels, describes them 
as consisting of thrones, dominions, principali- 
ties and ])OW"ers. There are cherubim and 
seraphim. These things show that there is 
gradation among the Angels. When we 
look at the material parts of the world, we 
find that the sun differs from the moon, in 
brightness and size; tliat one star " differeth 
from another star in glory," brilliancy or size. 
Descending to the vegetable kingdom, we find 
that there is a wdde difference betw^een the 
stately "cedar of Lebanon, and the small hysop 
that sj>ringeth out of the wall;" betAveen the 
majestic oak, the giant of the forest, and the 
slender grass that grows at its root. The feath- 
ered tribe furnishes the same wide variety, 
from the great eagle, the bird of liberty, doAvn 
to the little and almost insignificant humming 

E 



50 SUBORDINATION— OHDHR IN GOD'S WORKS. 

bird. So also among the fishes, from the mon- 
ster whale, that makes the great sea boil like a 
pot, clown to tlie little minnow. If we come to 
the animal kingdom, the same difference and 
variety characterizes this large class of crea- 
tures, from the mighty lion, the king of tl.e 
forest, down to the mole that burrows under 
ground. When we look at men we find the 
same gradation, not only in the size of their 
bodies, but also a wide range in their intellectual 
powers; ranging from the mind of a Milton, a 
Webster or a Calhoun, down to the almost bru- 
tal Hottentot, that scarcely rises above in- 
stinct. The giant Patagonian differs widely 
from the pigmy of the Northern regions. 
There is also a wide dift'erence among men in the 
color of their hair, eyes, conformation, and also 
in the color of their skin, ranging from the white 
Caucasian, down to the black Ethiopian. It i& 
plain from these things, that there is a wide dif- 
ference between created things ; that this va- 
riety or difference, is not the result of blind and 
senseless chance ; but that it is the work of an 
Infinite and All-wise Being, who does all things 
Avell ; who has made nothing in vain, but has made 
all things for His own glory. ]N"either is this 
vast variety, this gradation, this order and de- 



SUBORDIN'ATIOX— ORDKR IX (lOD'S WORKS. 51 

peiideiice of all parts on each otber, the work 
of as many independent and separate beings, 
but on the contrary, all is the work of One, the 
only living and true (lod. (iod, then, being an 
intelligent! and wise Creator, must and did have 
some great design, worthy of Himself, in crea- 
ting this wide ditt'erence even in the same order 
of creatures. What then was this design? It 
was certainly to show how great He is, to his in- 
telligent creatures, that they might admire and 
praise their great Creator. Why then is there 
found among beings of the same order, so great 
a variety? Why were not all the angelic host 
created on an equality? Why was there a dif- 
ference between Ani>-els and Arch-Ano-els ? 
Why were there cherubim, or those created 
*'like to the dlreat One ? " Why a class called 
seraphim, or "fiery ones?'" AVliy not a per- 
fect equality among all these spiritual beings ? 
The only answer that can be given to these, 
and similar inquiries, is that the all wise God 
saw fit so to create them, to fill a particular 
sphere, and that an Arcli-Angel was not de- 
signed to fill the place of an Angel, nor that an 
Angel could not fill the iilace of an Arch-Ano-d 
Avithout disturbing the law of his nature and 
infringing on the ]>urposes of his Creator, and 



52 SrBOKr)lXATloN'— OIlDKil IX <;oi)"S WOl^KS. 

thus attempting to defeat the end of his being. 
Why Avere not all the iish of the sea created 
o'l-eat whales ? Why were not all tiie fowls of 
heaven created noble eagles? Why were not 
all the beasts created noble, beautiful and strong, 
like the lion? Simply because such a state of 
things was not consonant with inhnite wisdom, 
nor in accordance with the design of creation. 
An eagle would not be suitable to fill the i)lace 
of a turkey, partridge, goose, or a common do- 
mestic fowl called a chicken. A lion would or 
could not fill the i)lace of the dull ass, or even 
supi)ly the place of the docile and patient ox. 
Everything in the animal, vegetable and spirit- 
ual kingdom, lias its own appropriate place ; 
and so long as it remains there, the order and 
harmony of all things de])ending on this subor- 
dination continues to exist ; but so soon as 
thei-e is a reversal of this law, confusion, pain, 
and often death is the result. See how the 
Angels existed in harmony until they would be 
Gods ; " then there was war in heaven," and 
the Angels which kept not their first estate, 
but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in 
everlasting chains under darkness, unto the 
judgment of the great day.'' ( Jude, cli. 0. ) 
The <{uestiou also arises, why were not men 



SIJ50R1)1N'AT1()N— OllDKK IK (iOD'S WnltKS. 0-) 

created eiiual in intellectual and bodily eapaei- 
lies ■? Why is it tliat some must and will 
be greater tlian the rest? This would have 
produced too mucli sameness, and a con- 
stant strivinn" lor tlie mastery. "Men would be 
angels." Why were not all created or made 
with the same color of eyes, hair and skin ? 
Why so great a vai'iety of color? Tliere must 
have been some design in this. What was that 
design? The question here presents itelf, was 
this difterence in the color of the skin so at the 
creation of man, or has it been of more rci-ent 
origin? If more recent origin, wliat was the 
design of Jehovah in thus making oi- distin- 
guishing in such a peculiar manner, one class 
of men from that of anothei-, when all descended 
from the same parents? That there was an 
original difference in the intellectual cajtacities, 
and a taste or pro[>ensity to ])ursue dilferent call- 
ings, is plain from the lUljle. In the brief his- 
tory of the human family bef».)re the flood, tin- 
historian states a few facts, sliowing cleai-ly the 
variety of taste, and as a natural consequence. :i 
disposition to seek difr'erent kinds of enqijov- 
ment. The descendants of Jal>al seemed lo se- 
lect the past(,>r:d mode of life: '"lie was ijic 
father of such a- dwell in tents, and <-A' such as 



54 SUBORDIXATIOX— OKDER IX GOD'S WORKS. 

have cattle. (Gen. iv: 20.) The posterity of 
Jubal were incUnecl to be musicians ; " lie \vas 
the fother of all such as handle the harp and 
organ. (Gen. iv: 21.) " Tubal Cain was the 
instructor of every artificer in brass and iron." 
Theso seem to have had a capacity for the use- 
ful arts of life, the invention and manufocture of 
the implements of husbandry, and domestic 
uses. But that there was a difterence in the 
color of the skin of the human family at the be- 
ginning, we neither assert nor believe. We 
take the Bible for our guide, and we intend to 
follow its teacliings regardless of the fear or fa- 
vor of any one. We state then, once for all, 
and as a preliminary to a proper understanding 
of our position, that we believe in the unity of 
the human race, that is, that all the human family 
originated from the single pair, Adam and Eve. 
We have no sympathy with the unscriptural 
theory of different centres of creation ; but we 
believe with the Bible, that God hath made of 
one blood (or race,) all the nations of men 
for to dwell on the face of the earth. (Acts 
XV ii: 26.) They are all sinners. This shows they 
are descended from one common parentage. 
Christ is the savior of bond and free. Tliese 
with many other reasons, teach clearlv that -dW 



SUB0R])1X\T1()X— ORDER IX (iOD'S WORKS. 55 

men have a coiiiinoii origin. There does not 
appear to have been any distinction of color 
among tlie hnman race before the time of Xoah. 
So far as we can discover from the Scriptures, 
men seem to have been of the same color, up 
to the time of N'oah. God created Adam a 
red man. This position is sustained by the 
])roper and literal meaning of the word Adam, 
\iz: "red earth." The human tamily were 
one in color before the time of Xoah. The 
world was destroyed by the flood, and tlie 
earth was afterwards repeopled by the descen- 
dants of the three sons of Xoah ; and varieties 
among men may be reduced to three leading- 
classes, corresponding to the number of their 
great progenitors after the flood, Shem, Ham 
and Japheth. The tenth chapter of Genesis 
contains a list of the names of the various na- 
tions which have sprung from this triple source. 
Many of these names can yet be identified in 
the nations of Asia, Europe and Africa. The 
other classes which have been made by those 
who have written on the varieties of the human 
race, can be clearly traced to an amalgamation, 
or mixture of the three principal divisions indi- 
cated before. AVe now lake u}) the main point 
of our work. 



56 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVKKV. 



CHAPTER IV. 

THE ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVKHV. 

The cliftereuce of color which exists ainoiiLitlie 
various tribes, or divisions of the human family, 
was believed by learned men for a long series of 
years, to be the effect of climate. ]>ut this tlieory 
is now o'enerally abandoned by the learned of 
the world. The fact of the case will not sus- 
tain the opinion that the difterence of color is 
to be attributed to the effects of climate. Tlu> 
African race has been tlie inhabitant of the 
mild climate of North America for more tlian 
a century, without any material cliange of color. 
While the white men of Europe have lived un- 
der the intlnence of a tropical sun since tlie first 
settlement of the country, without any mate- 
rial change of the color of their skins. It is true 
the sun tans them^ but Avhen they remove to a 
mild climate, or keep out of the sun, their skiu> 
become as white as ever, and the children of 
these men sliow no proof of being turned blnck 



OllKil.N OF Cor.OR AVI) SLAV Kin'. 57 

by living in ;i tropical climate. The theory <»f 
climate, we say, has been al)an(loned by learned 
men, as altogether inadeqnate to the prodnc- 
tion of thiis marked changf, or rather dilt'er- 
ence in the color of the skin of the different 
races of the hnman family. There is no ac- 
count of the immediate creation of the black 
race. Adam evidently was a red man ; his ver\- 
name indicates this; and according to the usage 
of the Hebrew language, proves it to the mind 
of every competent judge, that the human 
family are all descended from the same original 
pair. The lVd)le clearly proves, and the great 
plan of redemption by one savior proceeds on 
the same princi[)le. We are then sliut up to the 
necessity of seeking for the origin of the differ- 
ent colors among men, in some remarkable 
cliange that has been brought about by the 
Providence of God. Xow the (piestion arises 
in the mind of every lover of truth, in the 
mind of evei'y intelligent man who belie^'es the 
Bible to be a revelation of God's will to man, 
is there any [)ortion of this sacred volume which 
throws light on this mysterious subject ? To 
this (piestion we reply, that the Scriptures cer- 
tainly do throw much light on this ])er[)lexing 
[)oint. Do you iiKpiire of us in what book. 



58 ORIGIN' OF CQLOK AND SLAVERY. 

chapter and verse is tills important liglit to bo 
found 'i We answer in the nintli chapter of 
Genesis, from tlie 20th to tlie 25th verse. The 
difference of color among men evidently origi- 
nated in the family of Noah. This position is 
sustained by two unanswerable ai-guments, viz : 
First, the usasje of the Hebrew lano-ivao-e, or 
what is called by scholars, the philological argu- 
ment. And second, by the facts of history. 

First, we notice the philological argument. 
It is a fact known to every scholar that the He- 
brew language expresses the nature of the ob- 
ject, and also that names were frequently given 
expressive of some distinguishing quality pos- 
sessed by the person to whom it was applied. In 
other words there was some feature, or pecu- 
liarity in the person that gave rise to his name. 
We will give some illustrations of this position, so 
that the reader who has not the advantages of a 
learned education, may be able to judge for 
himself, by a reference to his Bible, whether 
we are correct or mistaken in our view of the 
matter. We have already referred incidentally 
to the name of Adam, as meaning '"'' red earth.'''' 
Noah, means "rest." (Gen. v: 29.) Lamech 
begat a son, "and he called his name Xoah, 
saying his name shall comfort us, concerning 



ORKilX OF COLOR AND SLAVKRY. ')0 

our work and toil of om- liaiuls, because of tlie 
ground wlncli tlie Lord hath cursed." Melchis- 
zedek, means "King of lligliteousness;" Melek, 
nieanino; "King,'' andZedek, "Kigliteousness." 
Salem, means "Peace;" — Abraham, means 
"Father of many Nations" — Ab, "Father" — 
Raheim, " Nations or People." "Neither shall 
thy name any more be called Abram; but thy 
name shall be Abraham, for a father of many 
nations have I made thee." (Gen. xvii: 5.) 
Isaac, singnities "Laughter;" because Sarah 
laughed in unbelief at the promise of God that 
she should have a son in her old age. (Gen. 
xviii: 12.) "And Abraham called the name of 
his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah 
bore to him, Isaac, and Sarah said, God hath 
made me to laugh, so that all that hear will 
laugh with me." (Gen. xix: 1, ;5, 6.) Jacob, 
means "Supplanter;" Dan "Judgment." "And 
Rachel said, God hath judged me, and also hath 
heard my voice, and hath given me a son; there- 
fore called she his name, Dan." These are only a 
i'iiw of the many instances that might be pro- 
duced, showing that this is a leading and im- 
portant principle of the Hebrew language. 
(We refer the reader for a full number of He- 
brew words and names, illustrating our proposi- 



6(1 ORIGIN OF COLOK AND SLAVERY. 

t.ioM tt) Geii. xxx: 8, 24, also xxxv: 10, 18.) 
TJicre llacliel called her second son, Ben-oni, 
that is " the Son of my Grief,'' for she died ; but 
his father called him, Benjamin, tliat is ''the Son 
of my Bight Hand." The reader is ready to in- 
(jiiire of us, what bearing has all this on the sub- 
ject of different colors among men? We re- 
])ly, simply, this, viz : Ham's name means 
'' Black.'' Gesenius, in his Hebrew lexicon, un- 
der the word Ham, says, that is " a name of 
Egypt; probably its domestic name among the 
Egyptians themselves; but so inflected by the 
Hebrews, as to refer it to Ham, the son of 
Xoah, as the progenitor of the Egyptians, as well 
as other S(nithern nations, (Psalm Ixxviii: 51 ; 
cv: 23-2 7; cvi: 22.) This word, in the Coptic and 
Satadic dialects, according to Plutarch, has the 
signification of blackness and heat. " Ham a 
son of Xoah, whose posterity are described 
in Gen. x: 6-20, as occupying the southernmost 
regions of the known earth ; thus according 
a})tly with his name — that is, warm, hot." There 
]nust, then, have been some peculiarity of color 
in the skin of Ham, which caused his father to 
give him the name which he received, and 
which many of his posterity bore for ages after- 
wards. Shorn I'cceived his name, because he 



ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 6t 

was to be the " rcDowiied," or distinguishecl 
person from wliom Abraliam would spriiig.- 
Tlie Jewish nation also, came in liisline; and 
consequently the Savior of sinners, the most re- 
nowned person who has ever appeared on earth, 
sprang from the stock of Shem. It is said by 
learned men who have fully investigated this 
subject, that Shem means "Red." The name 
Japheth, the second son of Noah, is derived 
from a root or word in its simplest form, that 
means. Fair — Comely — Beautiful. This theory 
is not mere conjecture, but the philological ar- 
gument fully sustains the idea that the different 
colors of the human race originated in the 
ihmily of Noah. This change was evidently 
brought about by Him who doeth Ilis Avillin the 
army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of 
the earth. He had some wise purpose in A'iew 
by this arrangement, for "The judge of all 
the earth will do right." The difference of 
color was, then, a miracle, wrought by Jehovah 
for some important purpose. 

According to what we have said, it is plain 
from the true meaning of the Hebrew, that Shem 
was red, Jaj^heth white, and Ham black. From 
these three great progenitors, have sprung all 
the nations which now dwell on our earth. It 

F 



62 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLA.YERY. 

is admitted by the best philological writers on 
the subject of ethnology, or origin of nations, 
tliat the variety of color may be reduced to the 
three wliich we have enumerated. That the 
other varieties of colors are traceable to a mix- 
ture, or amalgamation, of these three primary 
colors. 

Let us now notice, in the second place, W'hether 
tlie tacts of history confirm or refute this view 
of the subject. From the tenth chapter of 
(lenesis, we learn what nations have sprung 
from the three sons of Xoah. From Japheth, 
descended most of the white races of Asia 
jMinor and Europe. "It is supposed," says Dr. 
Scott, '• by many learned men, and shown at 
least by probable arguments, that the descen- 
dants of Gomer, the eldest son of Japheth, set- 
tled in the northern parts of Asia Minor, and 
then spread into the Cimmerian Bosphorus, and 
the adjacent regions ; and that from them the 
numerous tribes of the Gauls, Germans, Celts 
and Cimbrians, descended. The Scythians, 
Tartars, and otlier northern nations, are sup- 
posed to be descendants of Magog and Tubal; 
the Medes of Madai ; the lonians, and all 
the Greeks, of Javan, and the Thracians of Ti- 
ras. Xearly all the inhabitants of Europe, and 



ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 63 

probably of America, descended from Japlietli, 
besides those of the northern regions of Asia. 
"The Isles of the Gentiles," generally mean the 
parts of Europe, most known to the ancient in- 
habitants of Asia. " The Hebrews were de- 
scended from Sheni by his son Eber." "Besides 
the descendants of Sliem by Araphaxad, the 
Persians are supposed to be the posterity of 
Elam ; the Assyrians and Chaldeans, of Asshur; 
and the Syrians, Armenians, and many tribes in- 
habiting Mesopotamia, of Aram ; and the im- 
mensely numerous inhabitants of the East 
Indias, China and Japan, may perhaps be con- 
sidered as the descendants of Joktan, the son of 
Eber. This appears, from the mention of a 
mountain in the East, to be the most accurate 
account of the peopling of the region in the 
eastern parts of Asia, South of Tartary. It is 
likewise certain, that many of the Arabians trace 
back their origin to Ishmael and Keturah.'' 
These extracts give the localities of the pos- 
terity of Japheth and Shem. Let us now turn to 
the same author and look out the locality of the 
posterity of Ham. Dr. Scott gives, in his com- 
mentary on the sixth and seventh verses of the 
tenth chapter of Genesis, all that is really neces- 
sarv to a clear understanding; of the matter. 



64 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 

•' From Cash, the son of Hara, the Ethiopians 
in Africa, and many tribes in Asia, inhabiting 
}»art of Arabia, and often improperly cahed 
Ethiopians, were evidently descended. Miz- 
aim was the ancestor of the Egyptians. Cyre- 
nians and Lybians ; or the word being plural, it 
may be the general name of the family or tribe 
whence they sprang ; and Phut of the Mauri- 
tanian, in short, all Africa, is supposed to have 
been peopled by Ham's posterity ; besides the 
Philistines, Canaanites and Phoenicians." Such is 
the statement of a man who was no friend of 
Slavery. It is a notorious flxct all these are black. 
Here, then, we leave this subject of color. 
The*two arguments have been presented, and 
it remains for every reader to form his judg- 
ment for or against our view, and determine for 
himself whether it is true or false. 

We are now prepared to enter on, and inves- 
tigate the Origin of Slavery, or the subordina- 
tion of one portion of the human family to that 
of another. Whatever may be said about all 
men being created free and equal; however 
men of more feeling than judgment, may extol 
what they are pleased to call a state of natural 
liberty ; however unthinking men may laud 
the praises of imaginary independence or un- 



ORI(;iX OF COLOR AND SLAYKRY. 65 

restraiued liberty; lioweYer men attempt to 
slioNY, or rather assert that all men are equally 
ondo^Yed with the same intellectual powers : 
still, not only the Bible, but even stubborn facts 
show a different order of things. Admitting, 
which we do freely, that at first, men were 
etpial by birth, and had an equal claim to " life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness," yet the 
<|uestion comes up, lias this original equality 
continued 'i or in other words, has not God, the 
author of all things, made some important 
chano'es? and are not these chanjies manifest 
from His word, and the facts which transpire 
under His providential government *;' To tlie 
first of these inquiries we answer in the nega- 
tiYe ; we say the original equality among men 
has not been continued. To the second ques- 
tion, we gi\e an affirmative answer, and say 
that God has made some important changes in 
the condition and relations of the different races 
of the human family, and we are prepared to 
prove that these changes are manifest from His 
word and ])rovidential government. We pass 
over the history of our race during the period 
that transpired before the flood, and come down 
to the re-peopling of the world, after that great 
ivent in the history of man. The different col- 



66 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 

oi's now foimcl among the Aarious nations of men, 
not only originated in the family of Xoah, but 
the subjection of one portion of the race to 
that of the other, had its bes-innino; in the same 
family. The sacred writer informs ns that af- 
ter the flood, "Xoah began to be a husband- 
man, and he planted a vineyard, and drank of 
the wine, and was drunken ; he was uncovered 
within his tent ; " that whilst he lay in this un- 
seemly condition from the stupefying effects of 
the wine of which he had too freely drunken, 
"Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the naked- 
ness of his father," but instead of concealing the 
matter, as both decency and respect for his 
father should have directed, his bad disposition 
led him to give vent to his sinful feelings, and 
wishing his other brothers to have a part of his 
imseemly enjoyment, he " told it to his two 
brethren without." Shem and Japheth did not 
enter into this improper and sinful sport of their 
brother, but took means to hide the shame of 
their fither, and adopted a plan to accomplish 
that end which manifested the greatest respect 
for their parent, and at the same time, the 
feelings of refined delicacy toward their erring- 
father. " And Shem and Japheth took a gar- 
ment and laid it upon both their shoulders, and 



ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. GT 

•went backwrivd and covered the nakedness of 
tlieir fatlier, and their faces were backward, and 
they saw not their father's nakedness." Noali 
remained in his tent until tlie narcotic and in- 
toxicating eftects of the wine passed oii* "He 
tlien awoke from his Avine, and knew Avhat his 
younger son had done unto him, and he said, 
''Cursed be Canaan ; a servant of servants shall 
he be unto his brethren. And he said, blessed 
be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall b(> 
his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and 
he shall dwell in the tents of Shem ; and Canaan 
shall be his servant."' (Gen. ix: 20-2 7.) These 
verses evidently contain the true and authentic 
record of the origin of the subjectioii of the 
children and posterity of Ham to the rule of his 
two other brothers and their descendants. Here 
also is the destruction of the lavorite theory 
that all men are born free and equal. It is also 
plain that Xoah was inspired by the Holy Spirit 
on this occasion, to point out the will of God in 
relation to the destiny of his sons. He could not 
have known of the indecent and sinful conduct 
of his son Ham from any other source. It was 
not done in a fit of anger, but the future bless- 
edness and elevation of Shem and Japheth's 
posterity is declared also, in so plain terms that 



08 OiaGIX OF COLOR AND SLA.VERV. 

all history confirms the solemn and divine nt- 
tcranccs of the man of God; it could not have 
been the result of anger, for liis })arental feelings 
would have prevented him from defrradino- 
Ham's children for all time to come. The de- 
claration of Xoah was not merely j)roi3hetical, 
that is foretellirtg what would he the condition 
of Ham's posterity, hut it was the announcement 
of a judicial decree of Jehovah against Ham 
and his posterity, as 2^ punislwient for his sins. 
Slavery then, is the res^dt, consequence, or more 
properly, the judicial punishment of Ilarn >< 
sin, not a sin in itself, (per se) bnt the punish- 
ment of sin. We say that this fearful annunci- 
ation of Jehovah by IN^oah, was a judicial de- 
cree — not a mere prophesy. To this conclusion 
we come, because the language here used is 
>iimilar ; the same word being used in the origi- 
nal that was employed by Jehovah in making 
known to Adam the punishment of his disobe- 
dience. (See Gen. iii: 17.) ''And unto Adam 
he said, because thou hast hearkened unto the 
voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of 
which I connnanded tliee, saying. Thou shalt 
not eat of it, Cuksed is the gi'ound for thy 
sake ; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days 
of thy life ; thorns also and tliistles shall it bring 



ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVKRY. ' 69 

fortli to thee; and thou slialt eat the herb of 
the field ; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou 
eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ; for 
out of it wast thou taken ; for dust thou art, 
and unto dust slialt thou return." This is be- 
yond dispute, the decree or judicial sentence of 
Jehovah against our tirst parent for his sin. Is 
then labor a sin in itself? Is the labor to which 
Adam and in him his posterity is thus adjudged, 
a sin in itself? Is the labor necessary to root u]» 
the thorns, thistles, and noxious plants which 
the earth, cursed of God for man's sin, so abun- 
dantly brings forth, a sin V So far from labor 
being a sin in itself, that is essentially necessary 
to our subsistence, and a refusal to labor justly 
and scripturally deprives the slothful individual 
of the right to a support. "This we com- 
manded you, that if any man would not work, 
neither should he eat." (2 Thes. iii: 10.) Still, 
according to the reasoning of some men, they 
do wrong, because they make slaves of the chil- 
dren of Ham who have been adjudged to an 
inferior station in life, for their great progeni- 
tor's sin. The same reasoning that would im- 
peach Jehovah for this sentence against Ham 
and his posterity, would also impeach his right- 
eousness for cursing the ground ; — dooming 



70 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 

men to constant toil to secure a subsistence. 
It would also impeach Jeliovali's justice for 
sending pain, disease, and temporal death on the 
whole human flimily in consequence of Adam's 
sin. " Wherefore, as by one man sin entered in- 
to the world, and death by six ; and so death 
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." 
(Rom. v: 12.) We have another illustration of 
the subordination to which the commission of 
sin subjects the guilty person, in the case of our 
first motlier. Slie listened to the voice of the 
tempter, and disobeyed her great Creator ; 
took of the fruit of that forbidden tree, whose 
"'taste brous^ht death into the world with all our 
Avoe;" and as a punishment she was subjected 
to the dominion of her husband ; her pains in 
child-bearing were greatly increased. "Unto 
tlie woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy 
sorrow and thy conception ; in sorrow thou 
shalt bring tbrth children ; and thy desire shall 
be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." 
(Gen. iii: 16.) Woman was originally created 
on an equality with man, but in consequence of 
her " being first in the transgression," she was 
not only doomed to great pain and sorrow in 
parturition, l)ut also to subordination to her 
liusband. That we are not mistaken in this 



ORIGIN 01' COLOR AND SLAVEUV. ,1 

view of the matter, avc will give the oi)inioii of 
one or two eminent commentators on the jtas- 
sage we have quoted. Adam Chirk gives tlie 
following exposition on the ] 6th verse : " I will 
greatly multiply, or multiphjing I vylllrnxdttpJn ; 
that is, I will multiply thy sorrow, and multi- 
ply those sorrows by other sorrow^s; and this 
during conception and pregnancy; an<l particu- 
larly in parturition or child-bearing. And this 
curse has fallen in a heavier degree on the v'o- 
man than on any o\\\qx female. Nothing is bet- 
ter attested than this; and yet there is certainly 
no natural reason why it should be so ; it is a 
part of her ]iunishment, and a part from which 
even God's mercy will not exempt hei'. It is 
added further, thy desire shcdl he to thy hus- 
band. Thou slialt not be able to shun the great 
jjain and peril of child-bearing, for thy desire, 
thy aj^jyetite, shaM he to thy husband, cY//r? he 
shall rule over thee: though in the creation both 
were formed with equal rights, and the woman 
had as much right to rule as the man ; but sub- 
jection to the will of her husband is one part of 
her curse ; and so cajjricious is this will often, 
that a sorer punishment no human being can 
well have, to be at all in a state of liberty, and 
under the protection of wise and equal law^."' 



72 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 

Says Dr. Scott, ou verse 16: "It cannot be 
supposed, that pain or sorrow would liave been 
connected with pregnancy, or child-bearing, had 
not sin been committed ; but now, the Lord 
threatened to multiply the woman's sorrows, 
even those of her conception ; so that, in a world 
of suffering the pains and sufferings of the female 
sex are thus greatly multiplied — indeed, almost 
beyond expression. It might, therefore, have 
been expected, that on this account women 
w^ould generally prefer the single state, and 
thus 25i'eY^i>t the increase of the human spe- 
cies; but God hath so ordered it, that marriage 
is, notwithstanding, generally chosen even by 
the suffering sex. The authority of the husband, 
when exercised uniformly with Avisdom and ten- 
derness, would have increased mutual felicity; 
but, by the entrance of sin, it is often converted 
into unreasonable and unfeeling despotism, and 
becomes an additional source of misery to A'ast 
numbers of unhappy females." Henry's note 
on this verse is the following, viz: "She" 
(that is woman) "is here put into a state of 
subjection. The whole sex, which, by creation, 
was equal with man, is for sin made inferior, 
and forbidden to nsurp authority. (1 Tim. 
ii: 11, 12.) The wife particularly is hereby put 



ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 73 

under the dominion of her hnsband, and is not 
sxl Juris', at Iter own dis2)osa/; of which see an 
instance in that law (Numbers xxx : 6, 8) where 
the husband is empowered, if he please, to dis- 
annul the vows made by the ^vife. This sen- 
tence only amounts to that comnumd, " Mlves, 
he in subjection to your own husbands. But 
the entrance of sin has made that duty a pun- 
ishment, Avhich otherwise it would not have 
been. Those Avives who not only despise and 
disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, 
do not consider that they not only violate a di- 
vine law, but thwart a divine sentence. 

We have been thus full in cur extracts, to 
show that we are not singular in our expositions 
of the Scriptures. All these great and good 
men confirm our position, that God often de- 
grades, or rather subjects, one class of human 
beings to the rule or authority of another class, 
as a punishment for their disobedience to His 
law. Thus, although man and woman were ori- 
ginally created equal, yet in consequence of the 
woman's being "first in the transgression " of 
God's law, and temi)ting him to sin, she has 
been subjected to man's authority, and the whole 
sex is inferior. 

Who, then, can deny the consequence, or con- 



74 ORIGIN' OF COLOR AND j^LWERY. 

elusion, that this Avas the judicial sentence of the 
Great Creator ? However, then, men, under 
tlie influence of tlieir enthusiastic feelings, may 
extol and laud the equality of all men, still they 
are not equal. They were created equal, but 
sin has entered and destroyed that equality. 
This inequality is not sin. in Itself^ but the I'esult 
or punishment of sin. Whatever, then, may 
have been the equality of Noah's three sons at 
iirst, it is certain that in consequence of the sin 
of Ham, he and his posterity are rendered infe- 
rior to Shem and Japheth and their posterity 
by the judicial sentence of Jehovah. 

Ham's conduct really deserved death. "Hon- 
or thy father and thy mother, that thy days may 
be long in the land which the Lord thy God 
giveth thee." — Exodus xx : 12. Such is the ex- 
press laAv of God ; and passages bearing on this 
point are found scattered throughout both the 
Old and New Testaments. God pronounced a 
CURSE on the child that dishonors his parents : 
" Cursed, be he that setteth lightly his father or 
his mother; and all the people shall say amen." 
(Deut. xxvii : ] 6.) Such children forfeited their 
claim to life, and disrespect to parents "was by 
the same law a capital crime. (See Deut. xxi: 
18-21.) So that, according to the law of God„ 



ORIGIN' OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 75 

Ham deserved deatli for his unfilinl and impious 
conduct. But the Great Lawgiver saw fit, in 
his good pleasure, not to destroy Ham with im- 
mediate death, but to set a mavh of (Jj'fjrdda- 
tlon on liim, as he liad done will] the first mur- 
derer, Cain, that all coming generations miglit 
know and resjjcct the laws of God. Slavery 
was, ]n'Operly, a ('omrni'tufion or a change of 
punishment. Death was the real punishment 
of the crime, but Jehovah, for reasons satisfac- 
tory to himself, changed it to a degrading state 
of continued servitude. This curse of slavei-y 
evidently was a judicial act, and Xoah pronoun- 
ced it by the dictation of the Holy Spirit. 

It is further evident, from the manner in 
which this phrase is used in the Bible, that it 
was a judicial act, or the sentence of God agahist 
Ham and his posterity. "Cursed be he," " thou 
art cursed," and similar expressions are used 
several times in the books of Moses, and implies 
that the person or thing thus "cursed" tails un- 
der the wrath and indignation of God. See 
examples of this mode of malediction, Gen. iii, 
14, where God says to the serpent, "Thou art 
cursed above all cattle and above every beast of 
the field ; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust 
shalt thou cat all the days of thy life." TluM-e 



76 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERV. 

was degradation in this curse. " Cursed is the 
ground for thy sake." Here barrenness and the 
production of noxious weeds are the result of 
man''s sin on the earth. The reader will find 
the same mode of expression no less than twelve 
times in the 27th chapter of Deuteronomy, 15- 
26 verses. Dr. Clarke has the following note 
on the loth verse of this chapter, viz : " ' Cursed 
be the man,' &c. Other laws previously made 
had prohibited all these things, and penal sanc- 
tions were necessarily understood; but here God 
more openly declares, that he who breaks them 
is cursed — falls under the wrath and indiaiiation 
of his Maker and Judge."" 

Simeon and Levi were the principal actors in 
the murder of the Shecemites, and the dying- 
patriarch, speaking of this deed of blood, says: 
" Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce ; and 
tlieir wrath, for it was cruel." And as a pun- 
ishment upon them, he says, by divine authori- 
ty, " I will divide them in Jacob and scatter 
them in Israel." (Gen, xlix: 7.) This literally 
took place. The tribe of Levi, having no lot 
of its own but a few cities of refuge, being the 
priests, they were literally " scattered." The 
tribe of Simeon had its portion in different parts 
of Palestine, (see Joshua xix, 1-8) so that they 
were divided in Israel. 



OHKIIX OF COLofJ AND SLAVKI'.V. i < 

It should be noted by the reader that in all 
these different places the word is in the impera- 
tive mood, and literally translated is, " Cursed 
thou above all cattle ; " "Cursed the ground; " 
^' Cursed, Canaan ; '' and it should also be borne 
in mind that the Arabic copy of the books ot 
Moses reads, " Ham, the father of Canaan,'' in 
Genesis ix, verses 25, 26 and 2 7, histead of Ca- 
naan, The following is its version of the i)as- 
sage, viz: " Cursed be Ilam^ tJie father of Ca- 
naan. A servant of servants shall he be unto 
his brethren. * * * Blessed be the Lord 
Crod of Shem, and Ilan^ the father of Canaan, 
shall be his servant. * ^ * God shall en- 
large Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents 
of Shem ; and Ilarn., the father of Canaan, 
shall be his servant." This readins: is found in 
none of the other versions, and is thought by 
many good critics to be a mere gloss. Let this 
be as it may, we maintain that the common opin- 
ion of many commentators that this curse of 
slavery fell crclffs/rclt/ on the family of Canaan, 
is erroneous. It is known to all readers of the 
Bible, and acknowledged by those writers who 
attempt to maintain this exclusive vicAV of the 
subject, that a large majority of the descendants 
of Canaan were destroyed by the Israelites when 



78 OEIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 

they entered Palestine under Joshua, so that if 
they were exterininated they could not become 
servants to the posterity of Shem and Japhetli. 
This is one reason why we reject this limited in- 
terpretation. Another reason for the applica- 
tion of this curse to all the descendants of Ham 
is founded on the foct tliat all Ham's posterity 
are either black or dark colored, and thus bear 
upon their countenance the mark oi iiiferiorif;/ 
which Grod put upon the progenitor. , 

There is a third reason for the general appli- 
cation of this malediction to all Ham's children. 
This is derived from the 7neaning or significa- 
tion of the names of his four sons, Cush, Miz- 
raim, Phut and Canaan. We will take them uj> 
in their order. 

First, Cush means black, or one with a burnt 
countenance. This conclusion is derived from 
the fact that the i^eptuogint, that is, the Greek 
translation of the Old Testament made at Alex- 
andria, in Egypt, nearly two hundred years be- 
fore the birth of Christ, renders the word CusJi, 
Gushite; and its kindred roots, in many places, 
by the word Ethiopia, Ethiopian. The word 
Ethiopia being of Greek origin, composed of 
two words, one meaning black (aith) and the 
other countenance (ops.) The word Cusli is 



ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 79 

tliiis rendered in some six ])laces. [See exam- 
ples in 2d Kings, xix, ; Isa. xxxvii, 9; Esther, 
i, 1 ; Psalms Iviii, 31.) Cushite is translated 
Ethiopian four or five times. [See Num. xii, 1.] 
" Miriam and Aaron spake against JMoses be- 
cause of the Ethiopian woman whom he had 
married, for he had married an Ethiopian wo- 
man. Jer. xiii, 23 : "Can the Ethiopian change 
his skin or the leopard his spots ? " That we 
are not mistaken in our view of this point, we 
will quote the note of Mattliew Henry on this last 
verse : " Can the Ethiopian change his skln^ 
that is by nature blacky or the leopard his spots, 
which are even woven into the skin ? Dirt con- 
tracted may- be washed off, but we cannot alter 
the natural color oi haii\ much less of the skin ; 
and so is it impossible, morally impossible, to 
reclaim and reform these people." 

Mizraim is the second son of Ham which is 
enumerated. This word comes from a root 
which signifies to shut in — to restrain — thus 
clearly implying subjection to others. 

Phut signifies to despise — to afflict — convey- 
ing the idea that the people from his stock be- 
longed to the degraded race of Ham. It is ad- 
mitted by the best scholars that the descendants 
ofPliut settled in Africa. Gesenius says, "Phut 



80 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLWERV. 

is a proper name of an African people, JSLiuri- 
tania according to Josephus, in which country 
Pliny mentions a river Phxt. The Septnagint 
and Yulgate (the Latin translation of the Old 
Testament) usually translate the word by the 
name Lybia." For examples, see Ezek. xxvii, 
10; XXX, 5; xxxviii, 5. / 

Canaan, the fourth son, means to he hoiccd 
dov^in — to bring low — to luimhlt any one. See 
an examj)le in 1st Kings, xxi, 29 : "Seest thou 
how Ahab hath Juimhled himself before me? " 

Blacky restrained., despised., bor':ed do ten are 
the words used to express the condition and 
place of Ham's children. Bearing the mark of 
degradation on their skin, they are restredned 
from being on an equality with their more fa- 
vored brethren ; they are often desxnseel 2xvi\ pre- 
vented from intermarrying or mingling with 
the white and red races, and finally they are 
hov^ed doicn to the authority of their superiors 
without successful resistance. 

To many these things may appear very singu- 
lar and strange. Be it so. We have only fol- 
lowed out what seems to be the teachings of 
the Bible on this strange but deeply interesting 
subject. We set out with the determination to 
take the Scriptures as the "Man of our counsel, 



ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 81 

n liglit to our foot, and a lamp to our })at]i,'" 
through all the dark windings and labarynths 
of tlie subject before us, and we are still willing 
to abide by the decisions of Hini whose "judg- 
ments are past finding out." God, by His de- 
cree, and in consequence of his sin, has degraded 
Ham's posterity. The sentence, " a servant of 
servants shall he be to his brethren,"" has been 
fully exemplihed in the past history of the three 
divisions of the human Ihmily. 

We W'ill here, for the sake of those who may 
not have access to the sources of information, 
introduce the testimony of several distinguished 
scholars in relation to the relative positions 
which the three great divisions of the human 
species have sustained to each other. We will 
give the testimony in the oi-der in which it is 
related in Genesis. First, then, we Avill give 
the note of Dr. Scott on the 2Gtli verse of the 
9th chapter of Genesis : 

"The descendants of Shem, in the line of 
Arphaxad, Eber and Peleg, included all the pos- 
terity of Abraham ; and the Lord Jesus, ' in 
whom all the nations of the earth are blessed,' 
sprang from him. Thus Jeiioa^aii was especial- 
ly ' the God of Shem.' His descendants com- 
prised a vast majority of the worshippers of the 



82 OrJGIX OF COLOR AND SLAYEilV. 

true God, till the coming of Christ ; and after- 
wards they were the first and principal instru- 
ments of bringing other nations to share the 
blessings of salvation ; so that the other sons of 
Xoah, when converted to Christianity, are 
taught to worship and 'bless Jehovah, the God 
of Shem.' Tiie i)Osterity of Abraham also sul)- 
jugated or di^stroyed the posterity of Canaan ; 
and the nations which sprang from Shem by his 
other sons, have prospered greatly, enjoyed 
fruitful countries, and been far more civilized 
than the race of Ham." 

^'erse 27: "Japheth seems to have been the 
progenitor of above half the liuman race ; and 
the |)rincipal success of the gospel, in the calling 
of the Gentiles, has hitherto been among his de- 
scendants. Thus God has enlarged Japheth and 
persuaded him (so some render the word ;/^/^r//) 
' to dwell in the tents of Shem,' by receiving 
the gospel from preachers of Abraham's race, 
who descended from Shem, and so obtaining ad- 
mission into the church. The descendants of 
Japheth have also obtained that dominion under 
the Greciau and Il;oman Empires, and subse- 
quent ages, which was for a lon^* time chieliy 
possessed by tlie posterity of Shem. Indeed, 
even a o'eneral knowledo;e ot the outlines of his- 



OKIGIN OF COLUll AND SJ.AVl'.KV. Ho 

tory, will suificc to satisfy the serious eii([uii-er 
that the descendants of Canaan have ])een sub- 
jected t ) those of ISJieni and Japheth, through 
many o'enerations : and the extraordinary ac- 
coniplishnient of this prediction, which contains 
almost a prophetic liistory of tlie world, yindi- 
eates Xoah from the sus2)icion of haying nttered 
it from personal resentment, and fully proves 
that the Spirit of God took occasion, from Ham's 
misconduct, to reveal his secret purposes for a 
yery important benefit to i)Osterity, even to this 
day." 

"The -whole continent of Africa was peo})led 
principally by the descendants of Ham ; and for 
how many ages liave the better parts of that 
country lain under the dominion of the Romans^ 
then of the Saracens, and now of the Turks i 
In what wickedness, ignorance, barbarity, slave- 
ry, misery, live most of the inhabitants? and of 
the poor negroes, how many hundreds every 
year are sold and bought, like beasts in the 
market, and conveyed from one quarter of the 
Avorld to do the work of beasts in another." 

S^Blslwp JS^eictori. 

" True religion has hitherto flourished very 
little among Ham's descendants ; they remain 
to this day almost entire stran<jei-s to Christian- 



84 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 

ity; and their condition in every age has re- 
markably coincided with this prediction." 

[Scott. 

" There never has been a son of Ham who 
has shaken a sceptre over the head of Japheth. 
Shem hath subdued Japheth, and Japheth sub- 
dued Shem, but Ham never subdued either.'* 

[Meade. 

This must be understood with one or two ex- 
ceptions, for the Egyptians enslaved the Israel- 
ites, and they made some conquests in Asia. 
(2 Chron. xii: 2-4.) But while they have ruled 
over each other with great rigor, their domin- 
ion over the descendants of Shem or Japheth 
have been of short duration. 

The reader will notice that in the preceding 
parts of this chapter we have been careful to 
distinguish between the nature of a prophetic 
announcement of a future event by an inspired 
man, and the judicial sentence of Jehovah when 
inflicting punishment for crime. This distinc- 
tion should be carefully noted. There is a dis- 
tinction and on important difference in the two 
things. In fulhlling aprophecy the instruments 
may be, and frequently are, guilty of the most 
heinous sin. While those wlio carry a judicial 



ORIGIJ^ OF COLOR AND SLAVERY. 85 

sentence into execution cainiot be cliai'geable 
with sin, unless they go beyond and abuse the 
power confided to them. Still there is always a 
proper distinction between the abuse and legiti- 
mate use of power. An executive officer is not 
chargeable with ci'ime for hanging a murderer 
who has been tried and condemned by the 
proper authority. \Ye will give an example of 
the fulfillment of prophecy in which the instru- 
ments were chargeable with the foulest murder. 
The prophets of the Old Testament had fore- 
told the arrest, trial and crucifixion of Christ: 
all the particulars pertaining to these things had 
been pointed out. " Why did the heathen sage 
and the people imagine vain things ? The king 
of the earth stood up, and the rulers were 
gathered together against the Lord, and against 
his Christ; for, of a truth, against thy only 
child Jesus, wliom thou hast anointed, both 
Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles 
and the people of Israel, were gathered together 
for to do ichatsoever they have and in coun- 
sel DETEKMIXED BEFOEE tO he doue.''^ (ActS 

iv, 25-28.) While, then, all these combined 
together to effect the death of Christ to gratify 
their wicked passions and satisfy their stern 
zeal, they were guilty of murdering an innocent 
II 



86 ORIGIN OF COLOR AND SLA.YERY. 

person, for, says Peter to the Jews, (Actsiii, 14, 
15) "ye denied the Holy One and the Just, and 
desired a mnrderer to be granted unto you, and 
KILLED THE Prixce OF LiFE, whoiii God hath 
raised from the dead." Thus God leaves wicked 
men to the exercise of their free will ; they act 
with their own will, fulfill his purposes, and he 
holds them responsible for their sins. 

On the other hand, the magistrate, as the 
agent of society, commits no sin in hanging the 
murderer, for God has decided in his word that 
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall 
his blood be shed, for in the image of God made 
He man." (Geii.ix, 6.) The declaration of Noah 
was then not a mere prophecy, but the Judicial 
sentence of Jeliovah against Ham and his pos 
terity for the father's sin. In holding the 
descendants of Ham in bondage there is no sin. 
The power may be abused, but still this does 
not make the relation of master and slave sinful 
in itself, any more than the tyrannical and un-^ 
reasonable exercise of power on the part of the 
husband over the wife makes the marriao-e rela- 
tion sinful in itself. The dominion of the 
husband OA'er the Avife is in consequence of 
God's judicial decree for the woman's sin. 
The cases, to our mind, have a strong resem- 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS OX SLAVERY. 87 

blanee. The language of prophecy is uttered 
ill entirely diiferent words from that of a sen- 
tence. Let the reader remember this scriptural 
distinction and all will be i^lain to him. 



CHAPTER V. 

DO THE WRITERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TREAT SLAVERY 
AS A SIX IX ITSELF? 

Ty'^e have shown in the last chapter what we 
believe to be the true and scriptural origin of 
color among the different families of the human 
race; the origin of slavery; that it is the 2y^(nish- 
ment of sin ; and that the announcement of Noah 
was not merely the foretelling of the place 
which Ham and his posterity should occupy and 
the manner in which they should be treated, 
but it was the sentence of God against him 
and his offspring, degrading them from an 
equality with their brethren, and consigning 
them to perpetual servitude. If this were not 
the correct view of the matter, then we 
would expect to find the subsequent writers 



8o OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

forbidding this monstrous iniquity, as they did 
idolatry, murder, adultery, lying and eovetous- 
ness. But how does the fact stand ':' Do the 
writers of the Old Testament condemn slavery 
and slaveholders as open transgressors of God's 
law ? Where are their anathemas against 
slaveholders ? Slavery is not condemned in the 
Old Testament. Is it merely silent on the 
subject? Let us then examine into the subject 
and see how the matter is treated by the prac- 
tice of good men and the direct precepts of 
law. The important and distinguished slave- 
holder, who is particularly noticed in the Old 
Testament, was Abraham, " the father of the 
faithful," "the friend of God," "in whom all the 
families of the earth are to be blessed." Abram 
— as his name at first was — was born 1920 years 
B, C. Noah cursed or pronounced the sen- 
tence of Jehovah against Ham and his posterity 
about 2327 B. C, so that he lived about four 
hundred (400) years after Noah. The first 
mention of his possession of servants or slaves 
is on the occasion of his havinor recovered Lot? 
his nephew, from the power of Chederlaomer 
and his associates, who took Sodom and carried 
oft' Lot as a captive of war with the remainder 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 89 

of the inhabitants. "And when Abram heard 
that his brother Avas taken captive, he armed 
liis trained servants, born in liis own house, 
three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them 
luito Dan." (Geu. xiv, 14.) About eight years 
before this event, it appears tliat Abram, with 
liis family, went down into Egypt on account 
of a famine wliich overspread the hind of 
Canaan. It appears, from the record (Gen. xii, 
16) tliat Abram's property consisted, besides 
sheep, oxen, asses and camels, of men servants 
and maid servants. We learn, incidentally, 
from the first verse of chapter 16th, from what 
nation or people his servants descended. " Now 
Sarai, Abram's wife, bore him no children; and 
she had an hand-maid, an Egyptian, whose name 
was Hagar." Ilagar, the handmaid of Sarah, 
was an Egyptian — one of the children of 
Ham, as Egypt is called the land of Ham; 
(See Psalms cv, 23,) showing that at that 
<3arly period servants wove obtained from the 
posterity of Ham ; and, although God blessed 
Ishmael wdth freedom and a numerous seed, still 
it was the result of his connection with Abram, 
and not particularly for his mother's sake, but 
commanded her to " return to her mistress, and 



90 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

submit herself under her hands." (See xvii, 20.) 
The next mention of the matter of possessing 
servants by Abraliam — for his name Avas 
changed, to correspond with the promise : Ab, 
a fither, and Raheim, nations, (see Genesis xii, 
5) — is the connection with the estabhshment of 
the covenant of circumcision : " This is my 
covenant which ye shall keep between me and 
you, and tliy seed after thee ; every man-child 
among you shall be circumcised. * * ^< 
He that is born in thy house, and he that is 
bouQ-ht with thv monev, must needs be circum- 
cised. And Abraham took Ishmael, his son, 
and all that were born in his house, and all that 
were bought with his money, every male of 
Abraham's house, and circumcised the flesh of 
their foreskin. ♦ ^5^ * ^j^^j j^U ^|^g 

men of his house, born in the house, and bought 
Avith money of the stranger, w^ere circumcised." 
(Gen. xvii, 10-13, 23-27. These passages show 
ibeyond successful refutation, that Abraham was 
the owmer of slaves : they w^ere not hired ser- 
vants. There is a remarkable fact coimected 
with the matter wdiich renders this position cer- 
tain : that is, the word which is here trans- 
lated "bought with thy money," is used in tlie 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 01 

same form and applied to the same subject, viz: 
(Exodus xii, 44) " Every man servant that is 
bought for money ^ when thou hast circumcised 
him, then shall he eat thereof." (Levit. xxv, 
16-51.) See also Levit. xxvii, 22: "If a man 
sanctify unto the Lord a field which he liatli 
houglit.'''' Here it is applied to landed property 
and shows beyond dispute possession for a^)e- 
cuniary consideration. The word is used as a 
noun in the 16th Aerse of this same chapter, 
and is translated "possession." In Jeremiah 
xxxii, 11, the word is translated "purchase," 
where it evidently related to the transfer of a 
piece of land for a pecuniary consideration : 
"The money was weighed," (verse 10) "the 
deed witnessed, (see same verse) and the deed 
is delivered to Baruch for safe-keeping." (See 
verses 12-15.) The word in the form of a noun 
is found also in Gen. xxiii, 18, where it is ren- 
dered " possession," and is there applied to the 
purchase of the field and cave of Macpelah 
with its appurtenances, which Abraham bought 
•of the sons of Ileth for a burial place. The 
sacred writer states that four hundred shekels 
was the price paid by Abraham to Ephron for 
the field and the cave, &c. He states also that 



92 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS OX SLAVERY. 

it was transferred in the presence of witnesses. 
The field of Ephron and all the trees that were 
in the field "were made sure unto Abraham for 
a 2^ossessio?i in tlie presence of the cliildren of 
Heth, before all that went in at the gate of his 
city.'^ (Gen. xxiii, 15-18.) Gesemius' Hebrew 
and English Lexicon, page 618, says it means a 
^'^ thing ^^?^rc'A«5er<^" — "a slave bought with 
money." (Gen. xix, 12, 13, 27.) We have 
been thus j^articular on this point to show that 
the modern notion that Abraham did not own 
slaves is a mere after-thonght, a perversion of 
the truth of Bible history, and merely got up for 
the purpose of covering up the unbelief of 
those who pretend to respect the Bible and its 
teachings, and at the same time condemn all 
who, like Abraham, possess slaves. It appears 
that Jacob had men-servants and maid-servants. 
We have thus noticed the practice of the patri- 
archs to show how they acted about the matter 
under consideration. We will now pass on and 
examine in what manner the law of God, as 
given by the mouth of Moses, treated the sub- 
ject of slavery. We will class the various kinds 
of servitude noticed by the great law-giver un- 
<der their proper heads, so that the reader may 



OLD TESTAMENT WTITERS ON PLAYEIIY. 93 

have a clear view of the wliole subject. We 
will also refer to and quote at length tlie pas- 
sages, to show that we are sustained in our class- 
ification by the Scriptures. Calniet enume- 
rates six difterent ways in which a Hebrew 
might lose his liberty : first, in extreme ^>oi'<?/'(y 
they might sell their liberty. "If thy brother 
be waxed poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt 
not compel him to serve as a bond-servant." — 
(Levit. XXV, 39.) Secondly, a father migJit sell 
his ch lldren. " If a man sell his daughter to be a 
maid-ser\'ant, she shall not go out as the men- 
servants do." (Exodus xxi, V.) Thirdly, in- 
solvent (hhtoTS became the slaves of the credi- 
tors. " Xovr there cried a certain of the wives 
of the projjhets untoElisha, saying, thy servant, 
my husband, is dead, and thou knowest that thy 
servant did fear the Lord; and the creditor is 
come to take unto him my two sons to be bond- 
men." (2 Kings iv, 1.) Fourthly, a thief if he 
had not money to pay the fine laid on him by 
law, was to be sold for his profit whom he had 
robbed. "If a thief be found breaking up, and 
be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be 
shed for him : if the sun be risen upon him 
there shall be blood shed for him : if he have 



94 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft." 
(Exodus xxii, 2, 3.) Fifthly, a Hehreva was 
liable to be taken prisoner in war and sold for a 
slave. Sixthly, a Hebrew slave, w^ho had been 
ransomed from a Gentile by a Hebrew, might 
be sold by him who ransomed him to one of his 
0W71 nation. He gives no proof for the tw^o 
last modes in which Hebrews might be enslaved, 
and we pass them without any further notice, 
and go on to notice the different Tcbids of ser- 
vitude among the Hebrews. 

The Hebrews had several kinds of servants : 
First — Hebrew slaves, or bond-servants, 
who could only at the first be bound six 
years, w^hen they were to be dismissed with 
presents from their masters; but their children 
born during their servitude, continued to be 
their master's property. If they^declined to 
go free, their master, with an awl, bored 
their ear to the door-post as a token that 
they could not thereafter have their freedom. 
*'If thou buy an Hebrew^ servant, six years 
shall he serve, and in the seventh he shall 
20 out free for nothiuG:; if he came in by him- 
self, he shall go out by himself; if he w^ere mar- 
ried" — that is, when he was purchased — "then 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. JJO 

his wife shall go out with hiiu ; if liis master 
have o-iven liiiu a wife, and slie liave borne him 
sons or daughters, the wife and her cliiklren 
shall be her master's, and he shall go out by 
himself; and if the servant shall plainly say, I 
love my master, my wife, and my children — I 
wdll not go out free — then his master shall bring 
him to the judges : he shall also bring him to 
the door, or unto the door-post, and his master 
shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he 
shall serve him forever."" (Ex. xxi, 2-6.) That 
is, he shall be a servant during the term of his 
natural life. This certainly is the meaning of the 
phrase in this connection, if it have any mean- 
ing at all. The parallel passage is found in 
Deut. XV, 12-18. The only addition is, that 
when the servant chose to go out he was not 
to go out empty, but was to receive liberal pre- 
sents from his master. (See verses 13 and 14.) 
'•Thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou 
shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and 
out of thy floor, and out of thy w^ine press." 
If a master struck a bond-servant till he died, 
he was only punished — not condemned to death. 
"If a man smite his servant, or his maid, with 
a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be 
surely punished ; notwithstanding, if he con- 



96 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

tiniie a day or two, he shall not be punished, 
for he is his money." (Exodus xxi, 20, 21.) — 
If a master struck out an eye or a tooth of his 
servant, he was to give him his freedom as a 
compensation. "If a man smite the eye of his 
servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish, 
he shall let him go free for his eye's sake ; and 
if he smite out his man-servant's tooth, or his 
maid-servant's tooth, he shall let him go free for 
his tooth's sake." (Exodus xxi, 20, 27.) "If 
the ox shall push a man-servant or maid-servant, 
he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of 
silver, and the ox shall be stoned." (Yerse 32.) 
Maid-servants had not the right, or title, to a 
release at the return of the seventh year, unless 
the master had defiled her, or he or his son had 
betrothed a female slave and not kept her as a 
wife, she was to have her liberty as a compen- 
sation for the injury she had sustained ; but she 
was also to receive presents at her departure 
from the house. " If a man sell his daughter 
to be a maid-servant, she shall not go out as the 
men-servants do; if she please not her master, 
who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he 
let her be redeemed. To sell her to a stranger 
he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt 
deceitfully with her ; and if he hath betrothed 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS OX SLxVVERT. 97 

her unto liis son, ho shall deal willi her after the 
manner of daughters; if he take him another 
wife, her food, her raiment and lier duty of 
marriage, shall he not diminished : and if he do 
not these three unto her, then she shall go out 
free without money." (Exo. xxi, T-ll.) If she 
choose to remain, the same ceremony of borino- 
her ear with an awl must be performed as in the 
case of the man-servant who voluntarily became- 
a servant for life. " And unto thy maid-servant 
shalt thou do likewise." (Deut. xxv, 17.) If she 
used her freedom, she was to have liberal pre- 
sents when she left. (See same chapter, 12-17.) 
Secondly — there were hired servants^ or 
those who worked for a stipulated price. Their 
term of service was three years : they were a 
kind of apprentices. That this was their term 
of service, we learn from Isaiah xvi, 14. 
" Within throe years, as the years of an hire- 
ling, and the glory of JNIoab shall be con- 
temned." This also explains another passage of 
the Bible, viz: Deut. xv, 18. "It shall not 
seem hard unto thee, Avheri thou sendest him 
away from thee ; for he hath been worth a dou- 
ble hired servant unto thee, in serving thee six 
years." The bond- servant wlio served six years 
was worth double a hired servant to his master 
I 



98 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

because bis terra of service was double. A bired 
servant was not allowed to eat of tbe passover, 
and from tbis circumstance tbey must frequently 
have been descendants of otber tban tbe Jewish 
stock, "for no uncircumcised person shall eat 
thereof." (Ex. xii, 45.) "A foreigner and an 
bired servant shall not eat thereof;" (same 46th 
verse) — that is, of tbe passover. They were 
not allowed to eat of the holy things. "A 
sojourner of the priests, or an hired servant, 
shall not eat of the holy things." (Levit. xxii, 
10.) They were to have their wages paid them 
so soon as they were due. "Tbe wages of him 
that is hired shall not abide with thee all night 
until the morning." (Levit. xix, 13.) 

Thirdly — there were voluntary servants : 
Joshua was the servant of Moses — Elisha of Eli- 
jah. There appears to be some difficulty about 
the length of time some of the Hebrew bond-ser- 
vants were to serve. It appears from Exodus 
xxi, 2, that the ordinary length of time for a 
bond-servant was six years. " Six years he 
shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out 
free for nothing." " As an bired servant, and 
as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall 
serve thee unto the year of jubilee." (Levit. 
XXV, 40.) This seems to convey the idea that 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 90 

tlie term of service extended in particular cases 
to the year of jubilee ; and this occurring every 
fiftieth year, the term would be very long if the 
servant happened to be sold a few years after a 
jubilee had occurred. In this case the poor He- 
brew^ was to be treated as a hired, and not as a 
bond-servant. Tlie reason given in the law 
seems to intimate that the master sliould remem- 
ber that he had been in bondage himself, and, 
from this flxct, should be mild in the exercise of 
his authority. " For they are my servants, 
which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt; 
they shall not be sold as bond-men." The Is- 
raelite who was sold to a stranger, or sojourner, 
might be redeemed by some of his relatives, if 
they were willing to do so ; or if he acquired the 
means he might redeem himself by paying the 
sum wdiich w^ould be considered fair for each 
year up to the year of jubilee. In case he was 
not redeemed in either of these ways, he was 
to have his freedom at the year of jubilee. — 
(See Levit. xxv, 47-55.) The probable opinion 
is, that w^hen a Hebrew voluntarily, through 
poverty, sold himself without any specific limi- 
tation, or when he was sold for a larger debt, 
or greater crime, he remained a slave for life, 
unless the year of jubilee intervened. 



100 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

Fourthly — The Hebrews, or Jews, liad an- 
other class of servants who were properly 
slaves for life. They w^ere sold, disposed of, and 
given by wall as an inheritance to their children. 
This class of slaves was not of the Hebrew 
stock. "Both thy bond-men and thy bond- 
maids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the 
heathen that are round about you ; of tl;em 
shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids; more- 
over, of the children of the stranger that 
do sojourn among you : of them ye shall 
buy, and of the families that are with you, 
which they begat in your land ; and they shall 
be your possession, and ye shall take them as 
an inheritance for your children after you to 
inherit them for a possession : they shall be 
your bond-men forever." (Levit. xxv, 44-46.) 
This language is too plain to be mistaken. — 
They were to be bought of the heathen; they 
were to serve forever — that is, during the 
period of their natural life ; to be held as a pos- 
session, the real idea of property, to be trans- 
mitted to children, as an inheritance. This 
passage is rather too strong for some men. We 
then will be compelled to search out the proofs 
from the Scriptures, that heathens and strangers 
mean in this connection the descendants of 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 101 

Ham, as our commentators, to which we liave 
access at this time, witli one exception, dodge 
the point. Dr. A. Clarke, who is usually a very 
good expounder of difficult passages, passes 
these verses toifhoff-t a note. Dr. Scott, who is 
remarkable, in a general way, for his candor and 
judicious exposition of the Scriptures, has the 
following note on verses 44-46, viz: " The Is- 
raelites Avere pe^'/nzY^ec? to keep slaves of otlier 
nations — perhaps, in order to typify that none 
but the true Israel of God participate of that 
liberty wdth which Christ hath made his people 
free; but it was also allowed, in order that in 
this manner the Gentiles might become ac- 
quainted with ti"ue religion. (Gen. xvii, 10, 
13, 19.) And, when the Israelites copied the 
example of their pious progenitors, there can 
be no reasonable doubt that it was overruled 
to the eternal salvation of many souls. It does 
not, however, appear from the subsequent his- 
tory, that tlie people availed themselves of this 
allowance to any great extent, for we read but 
little of slaves from among the Gentiles pos- 
sessed by them." Tlie secret why the Doctor 
did not expound these verses with his usual 
•clearness, Avhy he used and emphasized the 
word "^;6n7^^7('e 7," ^vill be found in tlie fact that 
I* 



102 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

he was opposed to slavery. This is plain from 
his note on Gen. ix, 24, 25, from which we take 
■the following sentence containing the whole se- 
cret. The emphasis is onr own. " God has not 
commanded us to enslave negroes, as he did 
Israel to extirpate the Canaanites ; and, there- 
fore, without doubt, he will severely punish 
the cruel injustice." This is the reason why he 
used the word ^9e?'m?'^?6C? instead o^ cominanded 
in his note on Levit. xxv, 44-46. This is what 
may be properly called dodging the point. We 
are forcibly reminded of a thing which every 
school boy has noticed, viz : in reading Greek 
or Latin authors, accompanied with notes by 
the editor, when we come to some really diffi- 
cult passage which needs a note of explanation 
to assist us in construing, we turn over to the 
notes, or where a note ought to be, and, behold, 
there is none ! The editor has found out that 
the passage is difficult and pursued the wisest 
plan — to keep a profound and provoking silence. 
The remark of Dr. Scott " that it was over- 
ruled to the eternal salvation of many souls," 
may be true ; but that is not the question now 
before us. Was the buying of slaves by the 
Israelites from the heathen 7'ight or wrong f 
This is the point to be settled. God may and 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 103 

does "make the wratli of man to redound to his 
praise." (Psahns Ixxvi, 10.) But that by no 
means proves that the men are mnocent when 
they fultill the purposes of God. This we have 
sliown clearly in tlie case of the crucifixion of 
€hrist. Good 'may come out of slavery, but 
that does not prove it to be right. The ques- 
tion now for every rational man to settle is, 
did God command the Israelites to buy slaves 
of the heathen ? If He did not condemn the 
l^ractice, and class it in Ilis law with murder, 
theft and idolatry, and similar offences, who 
dare rise up and say that the holding of slaves 
is a sin in itself, and thus presumptuously dare to 
correct God Himself? 

From Exodus xxii, 3, we learn that a man 
Avho was guilty of theft, and was too poor to 
make restitution, was to be sold for his theft. 
This is a wise and righteous law, and is not 
condemned by any one as an unjust punishment 
for the crime. It is admitted, then, that men 
may by crime forfeit their liberty, be punished 
for it, and no injustice done them. All the 
penitentiaries, workdiouses and jails, are a proof 
of this fact. Wliy, then, is it wrong to enslave 
the descendants of Ham, when they have been 
adjudged by Jehovah Himself to perpetual 



104 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

servitude /or their father'' s sin? Ham was 
guilty of death, as we have shown, and it was 
a relaxation of the punishment, or, rathei", a 
commutation of it, that slavery was inflicted on 
his posterity rather than immediate death. We 
will now return to the immediate point of the 
subject of consideration, and here we will quote 
the note of Matthew Henry on Levit. xxv, 44- 
46. "They," that is, the Israelites, "might 
purchase bondmen of the heathen nations that 
were round about them, or of those strangers 
that sojourned among them, (except of those 
seven nations that were to be destroyed,) and 
might claim a dominion over them, and entail 
them upon their fiimilies, as an inheritance ; for 
the year of jubilee should give no discharge to 
them. (46th verse.) Now this authority, which 
they had over the bondmen they purchased 
from the neighboring nations, was in pursuance 
of the blessing of Jacob, (Gen. xxvii, 29,) let 
people serve thee.'''' This is the declaration of a 
man who was an Englishman, and who had no 
sympathy with the system of slavery, as is plain 
from his own words. The sentence is found in 
the same note we have quoted, and is as fol- 
low^s: "Thus, in our English plantations, the 
negroes only ai'c used as slaves : how much to 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 105 

the credit of Cliristiaiiity, I sliall not say." The 
writer would not say how far the credit of 
Christianity was injured by the practice of ne- 
gro slavery as it then existed in the English colo- 
nies, now called the United States, but still he 
would not say that the system of slavery, as 
recognized by the law of Moses, in Levit. xxv, 
44-46, was very similar to it. So, that, one 
expositor, at least, understands Moses as we do, 
and does not attempt to pervert it, or obscure 
the meaning of the text, or divert the mind of 
the reader from the plain meaning of the law 
by drawing off his attention to another point 
altogether, viz : the assumed historical fact that 
the Israelites did not avail themselves of this 
allowance to any great extent. " Slavery, uni- 
versally, in the ancient world, was recognized 
by the Mosaic institutions." Again — " The 
condition of foreign slaves was less favorable ; 
whether captives taken in war, purchased, or 
born in the family, their servitude was per- 
petual." (Milman's History of the Jews, vol. 
i, i^p. 105, 100.) We need not multiply testi- 
mony on this point, as it is plain to every reader 
of his Bible, who desires to know the truth. 
" Both thy bond-men and thy bond-maids, 
which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen 



106 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAYER Y. 

about you." (LeYit. xxy, 44.) Probably the 
term ''^heathen'''' may need some explanation. 
It seems to be confined, in the law of Moses, to 
the descendants of Ham, including the Canaan- 
ites, 'who were to be destroyed by the Israel- 
ites. There were seven nations of these to be 
destroyed. The Israelites were to make no 
covenants of peace with these devoted nations ; 
to contract no matrimonial alliances with them, 
but utterly to destroy them. (See Dent, vii, 
1-5.) They gradually executed the purpose of 
Ood against the Canaanites, with one exception, 
viz : the Gibeonites, who obtained a league of 
peace with Israel by a crafty plot — by lying and 
making them believe that they were not of the 
Canaanitish tribe. For this deception Joshua 
23ronounced the curse of slavery upon them, as 
ih^ punishment of their sin. "Xow, therefore, 
ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be 
freed from being bond-men, and hewers of wood 
and drawers of water for the house of my 
<jrod." (See Joshua ix, 5-37.) This tribe was 
not only adjudged to slavery, but, terrible to 
think! they w^ere to be the slaves about the 
house of God. This is another example of the 
judicial curse of Jehovah consigning the Gibeon- 
ites to slavery for their sin. They deserved 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. lOT 

death — were devoted to destruction, but God 
commuted tlie i)uiii8bmeiit for the sake of tlie 
oath of tlie elders of Israel. The word heathen, 
m other parts of the Bible, seems to mean, or 
rather include, all people not of the Jewish 
stock. The words "nations," "Gentiles," 
"heathen," are all the same in the originah 
Still, Moses, in tlie book of Genesis, x, 5, uses 
the word expressly in application to the descend- 
ants of Japheth, or the wliite races. " By 
these," that is, by tlie sons of Javan, "were the 
isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands." 
"Isles of the Gentiles evidently denote Asia 
Minor and the whole of Europe, which were 
l^eopled by descendants of Japheth." (Calmet.) 
And as the descendants of Shem were not au- 
thorized to enslave the posterity of Japheth, but 
both were empowered to take servants or slaves 
of the descendants of Ham, we are compelled 
to conclude that the term "heathen," in Levit. 
XXV, 44, was designed to apply only to the 
descendants of Ham. That the term " heathen" 
is intended to describe the descendants of Ham 
more ])articularly, and tliat it is so used also by 
the authorized translation, is evident from 2d 
Kings xxi, 2, where it is said that Manasseh 
" did that which was evil in the sight of the 



108 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

Lord, after the abominations of the heathen, 
whom the Lord cast out before the children of 
Israel." (See the parallel — 2 Chron. xxxiii, 2.) 
IS^ow to settle the point before ns. Let the 
reader ask himself — What nations did the Lord 
cast out before Israel ? Evidently, the Canaan- 
ites, who were bej^ond disj^ute the descendants 
of Ham. But the seven nations to be destroyed 
did not include even all the descendants of Ca- 
naan, for he had ten or eleven sons, from whom 
sprang so many distinct nations, or tribes. (See 
Gen. X, 15-20.) It is certain that the Sidonians, 
or Phoenecians, were the posterity of Canaan, 
and they were not destroyed by the Israelites, 
for they were not included in the number to be 
exterminated : they also dwelt near to the land 
of Canaan. There was also the family, or tribe, 
of the Hamathites, who dwelt to the north of 
Palestine. Of these heathen nations the He- 
brews might purchase slaves. The term stran- 
ger, as used in the 45th verse, must also be 
understood as the synonym of heathen, in the 
44th verse. This is plain from the fact that the 
Hebrews were not allowed "to vex or oppress 
the stranger." (See Exodus xxiii, 9 ; Levit. 
xix, 33, 34.) These strangers must have been 
the descendants of Esau and Ishmael — the Idu- 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 109 

means and Arabians, and not of the Cushite or 
Canaanitish stock. Unless this be the true ex- 
position of the matter, the law cannot be saved 
from not only a})parent but real contradiction. 
There is one other point which requires notice 
before we leave the subject of Jewish slavery. 
The Jews were not allowed to deliver a fugitive 
slave to ^heathen master. "Thou shalt not 
deliver unto his master the servant which is es- 
caped from his master unto thee ; he shall dwell 
with thee, even among you in that place which 
he shall choose in one of thy gates where it 
liketh him best : thou shalt not oppress him." 
(Deut. xxiii, 15, 16.) Dr. A. Clarke, who was 
no friend of slavery, says, in his note on the loth 
verse — " Thou shalt not deliver the servant 
lohlch is escaped unto thee — that is, a servant 
who left an idolatrous master, that he misfht 
join himself to God and to his people. In any 
other case it would have been injustice to have 
harbored the runaway." "We cannot su})pose 
that this law required the Israelites to entertain 
slaves who had robbed their masters, or left 
their service without cause, but such only as 
were cruelly treated and fled to them for pro- 
tection — especially from the neighboring na- 
tions." — (Scott.) So that Scott, Avith all his 
J 



110 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLATERY. 

abhorrence for slavery, could not in this case 
refuse to give a proper interpretation of tlie 
passage. But the Bible is the best interpreter 
of itself. We have an example illustrating our 
view of the passage in 1st Samuel xxx, 11-18. 
It appears that the Amalekites had invaded and 
burnt the town called Ziklag. In the absence 
of the males they- had carried off all the women 
and children as captives of war. Among the 
women they had taken David's wives. He with 
his men pursued the marauders. They found 
an Egyptian almost famished ; but, on his receiv- 
ing some nourishment, his spirit came again, or, 
he revived. On being asked by David who he 
was, and to whom he belonged, he replied : *' I 
am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amal- 
ekite, and my master left me, because three 
days ago I fell sick." (Verse 13.) David soon 
discovered that he possessed the knowledge he 
desired to obtain, hence he asks him — "Canst 
thou bring me down to this company ? And he 
said, swear unto me by God that thou wilt 
neither kill me, nor deliver me into the liands 
of my master, and I will bring thee down to this 
company." (Verse 15.) Here, then, was a ser- 
vant giving the necessary information to the 
enemy of his master. He belonged to an idol- 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. HI 

ator, and thouglit tliat it was necessary to se- 
cure bis life and liberty by an oatb from David. 
This illustrates the true meaning of the law. 
Besides, the Bible no where encourages slaves 
to run away from their masters: when they do 
run away, they are required to return. This is 
clearly the teaching of the Bible, from the flict 
that the angel of the Lord said to Hagar, when 
she fled from her mistress, " Return to thy mis- 
tress, and submit thyself under her hands." 
(Gen. xvi, 9.) And Paul sent Onesimus back to 
Philamon. (See his Epistle to Philamon.) We 
learn another fact, incidentally, from tlie history 
we have here recorded. [1 Sam. xxx.] That is, 
it was customary for the Amalekites to own 
slaves. The Amalekites were descendants of 
Esau, one of the sons of Isaac, from the stock 
of Shem, [see Gen. xxxvi, lo] and this servant 
was an Egyptian, of ihe stock of Ham, thus 
showing that it was the custom of the children of 
Shem and Japheth to take their servants from 
the descendants of Ham, or the black race. 

There is still another proof that slavery was 
not treated as a sin in itself] derived from the 
inoral law. Now, it is admitted by all who re- 
ceive the Bible, that the law called the ten com- 
mandments is moral J that it is not temporary in 



112 OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 

its provisions, but it is binding on all men in all 
ao'cs and under all circumstances. This is ad- 
mitted with one single exception: that is, so 
much of the fourth commandment as relates to 
the particular day which is to be observed as 
the Sabbath. It enjoins the seventh day as the 
one to be observed, wdiereas most of the 
Christian w^orld observes the first day of the 
week as the Christian Sabbath, Still, all admit 
the tnoTcdhj binding nature of the injunction, or 
law, to observe one-seventh of our tune as a 
day holy to God. The tenth commandment 
certainly recognizes the relation of master and 
slave when it forbids us to covet the man-ser- 
vant or maid-servant of our neighbor. "Thou 
shalt not covet thy neighbor's house ; thou shalt 
not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his man-ser- 
vant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his 
ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." [Exo- 
dus XX, 17.] Covetousness and possession, or 
ownership, are correlative or corresponding 
ideas. Dr. D wight, (Theology, vol iii, p. 526) 
defines the covetousness w^hich is here forbidden 
to be, " the propensity forbidden in it is covet- 
ousness — an inordinate desire of worldly en- 
joyments; and, particularly, an inordinate desire 
of such enjoyments when in the possession of 



OLD TESTAMENT WRITERS ON SLAVERY. 113 

others." It is impossible for me to covet or de- 
sire my nei'^'iroor's wife unless he has one; so I 
cannot inordinately desire to enjoy ray neigh- 
bor's house unless he has or owns a house. I 
cannot covet a rented house; it is not the renter's 
property; if I covet the house, I covet it as the 
property of the owner. On the same principle 
I cannot properly covet a hired servant. It 
appears that possession, or ownership, and cov- 
etousness go together. Why, then, we ask, 
was this incorporated into the moral code, and 
property in slaves recognized by Jehovah, if the 
relation is essentially and morally wrong in it- 
self? Such seems, to us, to be the teachings of 
the Old Testament on this vexed question. But 
the objector comes in with the plea tliat some 
things were allowed by Jehovah under the Jew- 
ish dispensation, which are prohibited under the 
Christian, or New Testament. Among these 
things which were allowed, but now forbidden 
in the New Testament, are polygamy and 
slavery. Let us then examine into these two 
things, and see wherein they were alike and 
wherein they differ. 



J. 14 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 



CHAPTER YI. 

AN" EXVIIINATION" OP POLY'GAWY AND SLAVERY IX THE 
LIGFIT OP TEE BlliLB. ARE THEY TREATED ALIKE BY 
THE BIBLE? 

The importance of this subject must be ap- 
parent to every one who has informed himself 
on the vexed question of shivery. The oppo- 
nents of shivery have classed the two things to- 
er^ther — have characterized thein as the two 
"plague spots of our national character." If 
they are alike — if they were both connived at 
under the Jewish and Patriarchal dispensations, 
and both condemned under the New Testament 
dispensation — then the conclusion that slavery 
should be abandoned as a sin in itself, is irresist- 
able ; and, in this view of the matter, every 
Christian, who now owns slaves, should free 
them immediately. It will be our aim, in the 
present chapter, to examine the validity of this 
position. We have already shown, in the last 
chapter, that the inspired writers of the Old 
Testament did not condemn slavery as a sin in 
itself; so far from doing this, the law, on the 



POLYGAMY AND SLAYERY. 115 

contrary, laid doxYii regulations by which the 
iTiattor ^Yas to be treated — recognized the rela- 
tion as la\Yfid and right, and even authorized 
the Jews to purchase, hold, and entail them as 
an "inheritance" on their children. The law 
recognized them ^i'^, property ; for, when a man 
smote his servant or his maid with a rod, and 
he died under his hand, the master was to be 
punished ; notwithstanding, if immediate death 
did not follow, and the servant lingered for a 
day or two, the master was not liable to be pun- 
ished, and the reason given in the law is the 
truism that he is his master's property. " For 
he is his money." (Exodus xxi, 22.) Such, 
then, was the treatment of slavery by the law 
of Moses. 

The question then arises — Did the writers of 
the Old Testament treat ])olygamy as a sin in 
itself? Was it forbidden by any direct law on 
the subject? A considerable number of theo- 
logical writers have labored to show that it was 
expressly prohibited in the Old Testament, and 
at the sauTc time admit that Abraham, " the 
friend of God," "the father of the foithful," 
David, " the man after God's own heart," and 
Solomon, " the wisest man," were polygamists. 
In sustaining this view of the matter all kinds 



^16 POLYGAMY AND SLATERY. 

of twisting and screwing liav^e been employed 
to torture the Scriptures and make them sus- 
tain the contradictory opinions that the Bible 
forbids the practice, and, at the same time, the 
best of men is indulged in it without reproof. 
The real truth of the matter seems to be that it 
was recognized in the law and regulated, and 
not forbidden, for the main passage on which the 
advocates of the theory we are combatting rely, 
seems, after all, from its reading, the context and 
the authorised translation, to be simply a regu- 
lation of one feature of the subject. The pas- 
sage is Levit. xviii, 18: "Neither shalt thou 
take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover 
her nakedness besides the other in lier life- 
time." The marginal reading of the phrase, " a 
wife to her sister," is " one wife to another." 
The textual reading gives the true reading and 
the proper sense ; and, if it have any meaning 
at all, it means that a man was not allowed to 
marry two sisters at the same time. The poly- 
gamist might have more than one wife, but he 
w\as not allowed to take but one from the same 
family at the sa77ie time. This appears to be 
the natural and plain interj)retation of the pas- 
sage. The reason of the prohibition is, it would 
vex the other. The limitation is the life-time. 



POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 117 

Some of the best expositors give tliis interpret- 
ation of tlie passage, and we hope to make the 
whole matter pLaiu before we conchide. In or- 
der, then, that we may have a clear Adew of the 
whole matter, we must not confound the laws of 
God as being founded precisely on the same 
thing ; hence all intelligent writers find that 
there must be distinctions made, and the laws 
of the Bible must, like other statutes, be classi- 
fied under their proper heads. They, then, 
generally make the three following distinctions, 
viz: 

First Class. — Such as were temporary and 
local. To this class belong all the ceremonial 
laws — "a system of positive precepts respecting 
the external worship of God in the Old Testa- 
ment church — chiefly designed to typify Christ 
as then to come and to lead them (the Jews) to 
the knowledge of the way of salvation tlirough 
him." [Hebrews x, 1.] They principally re- 
spected sacred persons, places and things, the 
oflering of sacrifices, the appointment of the 
Aaronic priesthood, and Jerusalem as the place 
only where sacrifices could be acceptably offered 
to Jehovah. These were intended to be iu 
force till the advent of Christ. Tliey were 
obligatory on the Jews till tliat period. Having 



118 POLYGAMY AND SLAYERY. 

subsei-Yed the purpose of their temporary and 
local enactment, tliey are repealed and ceased 
at the death of Christ to be binding on the 
Jews or any other nation receiyinGf the Bible as 
the revealed will of God. Under this head may 
be classed some of the judicial laws of the 
Jewish nation, as they were a nation separate 
and distinct from all others: of this kind were 
those wdiicli concerned the redemption of their 
mortgaged estates — [Levit. xxv, 13;] the rest- 
ing of their land every seventh year — [Exodus 
xxiii, 11;] the appointment of the cities of 
refuge for the manslayer — [N umbers xxxv, 13;] 
the appearing of their males before the Lord at 
Jerusalem three times in the yeai* — [Dent, xvi, 
16;] and laws of a similar nature. Some of the 
judicial laws of the Jews are founded in the 
law of nature; that is, they are founded on the 
principles of perpetual equity, common to all 
nations, and are still of binding force. The 
best laws of civilized or Christian nations are 
founded on the same general principles of those 
of the Mosaic economy. 

Secoxd Class. — To this belong such laws as 
are called natural moral laws. The term moral, 
when applied to the law of God by theologians 
and moral philosophers, means that which is 



POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 119 

perpetually binding, in oi)position to that which 
is only binding for a time. The Decalogue, or 
Ten Coniniandnients, are generally ranged un- 
der the natural moral laws of God ; they grow 
out of the very nature of God and man, and 
their relations to each other. So long as God 
remains God and man remains His rational and 
responsible creature, these laws will be the rule 
of duty to man. We cannot conceive of the 
time or the place where it would not be the duty 
of men to reverence and love God. Idolatry 
can never be right so long as Jehovah remains 
the Ruler of the World, as it is rebellion against 
Him and treason against heaven. The consent 
of tlie parties engaged in the crime of adultery, 
theft or lying can never make such things right. 
All the laws of the Decalogue are moral natu- 
ral^ unless it be thai portion of the fourth com- 
mandment which relates to the day of the week 
which is to be observed as the Sabbath. It re- 
quires the seventh day to be kept holy, whereas 
the large majority of Christendom observe the 
first day as the Sabbath or day of rest. Still 
this does not invalidate the position that one- 
seventJi of our time is to be set apart for reli- 
gious purposes. The obligation of moral 7ia- 
tural laws is derived or grows out of the very 



120 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 

nature of things — the existence of God, his sov- 
ereignty over his creatures, and the existence 
of man as a rational, moral and responsible be- 
ing of Jehovah. Then unless God's nature is 
changed, or he absolves man from his allegiance 
and responsibility to Him, the moral law of the 
ten commandments is binding on all men of all 
ao'es and nations, at all times and under all cir- 
cumstances. 

Thirdly. — There is still another class of 
moral la^v s. These are technically called^>os/?/i'6 
moral laws. The reason why they are called 
positive^ and thus distinguished from natural 
TYioral laws, is, they do not derive their author- 
ity from the nature of things, but solely from 
the explicit comynand of God. The intermar- 
riage of near relatives in the early ages of the 
world's history, is ranked or classified under 
this head. Thus in the family of Adam, broth- 
ers and sisters must have intermarried with 
each other. The practice existed after the flood, 
for we find from Genesis xx, 12, that Sarah, the 
wife of Abraham, was his half-sister. Abime- 
lech asked Abraham why he denied that Sarah 
was his wife, and said that she was his sister. In 
justification of his conduct, and attempting to 
excuse the deception he had practiced on Abim- 



POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 121 

elech, Abraham replied, "Indeed slie is my sis- 
er ; she is the daugljter of my father, but not 
the daughter of my mother, and she became my 
wife." This connexion mnst have been lawful, 
and hence there could be no natural immorality 
in such connexions, or God would never have 
suffered such a thing to exist, but would have 
forbidden it as he did idolatry, profaneness or 
adultery. Such connexions are now unlawful, 
for God has expressly forbidden the intermar- 
riage of those who are "near of kin" to each 
other. [See Leviticus xviii: 6-17.] The very 
relation in which Abraham stood to Sarah be- 
fore their marriage is specified in the 9th verse 
as an unlawful connexion. The nakedness of 
thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the 
daughter of thy mother, whetlier she be born 
at home or born abroad, even their nakedness 
thou shalt not uncover. To marry any of the 
connexions mentioned in Leviticus, at this time, 
is a violation of a law called positive moral. 

\\\ all ages, among civilized, or, rather. Chris- 
tian nations, the law recorded in the 18th chap- 
ter of Leviticus, is the foundation of all leofisla- 
tion regulating the marriage of near kindred. 
They treat the marriage of those who ;^?arry 
within the degrees here forbidden, as illegal and 

K 



122 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 

incestuous. This distinction of tlic laws of God, 
where tliere is a real difference, is necessary in 
order to prevent confusion. All distinguished 
theologians which we have consulted, make the 
same distinction. Fisher, a Scotch divine, in 
his explanation of the Shorter Catechism, 2:>art 
2d, pages 9-21, lays down this point clearly. 
Dr. Dick, another Scotch divine, has written a 
number of lectures on theology. It is a stand- 
ard work. He maintains the same opinion in 
"Lecture 102, on the Law^ of God." Dr. Ash- 
bel Green (Lectures on the Shorter Catechism, 
vol. 1, ])p. 251-2) makes the following remarks 
on the subject, viz: 

"The laws of God, for the government of 
men, have some of them been temporary and 
local, and some of perpetual obligation. The 
ceremonial and judicial laws of the Jews were, 
during the continuance of the Mosaic economy, 
perfectly obligatory on that people — as much so 
as the precepts of the decalogue. But they were 
local and temporary. They never w^ere binding 
on any other people beside the Jews; and not 
bindinir on them after the advent of the Mes- 
siah. They were given for a particular purpose; 
that purpose has been accomplished, and the 
divine legislator who enacted has repealed them,, 
and they are no longer laws.. 



POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 123 

"Bat there are other laws of God, which are 
of perpetual and universal obligation. These 
are called moral laws. But here again there is 
a distinction which deserves to be noticed. 
Some of these laws are technically denominated 
moral natural and others moral jxjsit ire. Laws 
naturally moral are those which seem to derive 
their obligation from the very nature of things, 
inasmuch as you cannot conceive that they 
should be obligatory, while the relations exist 
to which they refer. Thus you cannot conceive 
that a rational and moral being should exist and 
not be under oblis^ation to reverence his crea- 
tor; you cannot conceive that it should be law- 
ful for such a creature to disregard and revile 
the infinitely great and good author of his 
being. 

"On the other hand, laws positively moral 
derive their obligation not from the nature of 
things, but solely from the exj^licit command of 
God. Thus the intermarriage of brothers and 
sisters must once have been lawful ; and if so, 
there is no natural immorality in such a connex- 
ion. But this connexion has been forbidden by 
God from a very early period of the world, and 
is therefore now a violation of a law called moral 
positive,'''* 



124 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 

There is no evidence in the Bible that such 
marriages were expressly forbidden until the 
law was given by Moses. These principles seem 
to be sound ; the position is correct ; the dis- 
tinction of laws clear. The intermarriage of 
near relations is understood not to have been 
unlawful — not naturally immoral — but is now 
positively immoral because God has forbidden 
such marriages. This appears to us to be cor- 
rect doctrine in accordance with the facts of the 
case. Now, on the same principle, we contend 
that polygamy is a similar case. There is no 
natural immorality in such a connection, or God 
would not have suifered such pious men as 
Abraham, David and Solomon to fall into such 
enormities, and live in them without rebuke or 
censure. He jrebuked David for his adultery 
and the murder of Uriah, by the prophet Na- 
than, and pronounced the punishment of the 
crimes of murder and adultery against him. 
"The sword shall never depart from thy house." 
[2d Sam., ch. 11 and 12.] The law treated it as 
adultery in this case because Uriah was still liv- 
ing when the crime was committed ; but there 
is not one word of rej^roof against David when 
Nabal, the Carmelite, was dead, and he took 
Abigal for his wife, in addition to " Ahiuoam, 



POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 125 

the Jezerelitess." Yet, if polygamy was forbid- 
den, it would have been adultery in that case, as 
well as in that of Bath-sheba. It was regulated 
in one feature as we have shown. [See Levit. 
xviii, 15.] "There is no natural immorality in 
such a connection." But, this connection has 
been forbidden in the New Testament, and is, 
therefore, now, a viohition of a law called moral 
positive. This view of the matter seems to re- 
lieve the whole subject of many of the great 
difficulties, with which it is surrounded, on the 
supposition that it was prohilited under the 
former dispensation. The view we have taken 
of it is in accordance with the facts of the case. 
We will here introduce the testimony of Dr. 
Dick, to whose lectures on theology we have 
alreadv referred. He makes the followinp' re- 
marks on the subject of polygamy. [Lecture 
105 — commentary on the seventh command- 
ment.] "As only a single pair was created, it 
appears to have been the intention of their 
Maker that a man should have only one wife, 
and a wife only one husbaiid. In this manner 
Malachi explains the fact when he says, 'And 
did he not make one?' — namely, one woman — 
'yet he had the residue of the Spirit.' 'And 
wherefore one? That he might seek a Godly 



126 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 

seed.' [Mai. ii, 15.] Yet, we know that poly- 
gamy was introduced at an early period, that it 
was practised by the patriarchs and other pious 
men, and that it was recognized by the law of 
Moses, and subjected to regulation. If it was 
not properly approved, it was tolerated, and we 
must conclude that at that period there was not 
such moral evil in it, if it was at all sinful, as 
was inconsistent with a state of salvation. The 
case is finally decided by our Saviour, who has 
forbidden polygamy. It now admits of no 
apology; and if a man, professing to be a 
Christian, should take to himself more wives 
than one, he would not only incur the penalty 
of human laws, but expose himself to the dis- 
pleasure of Heaven." 

From this extract it will be seen that Dr. 
Dick had some doubts about the sinfulness of 
the practice, for the law of Moses regulated^ 
but did not expressly forbid it. The Patriarchs 
and other pious men practised it without re- 
buke. If we then view it in the same light with 
the intermarriage of near relations, there is 
nothing naturally immoral in such connec- 
tion ; but such connections are now forbidden, 
and are consequently a violation of a moral 
positive law. If we take this view of the sub- 



POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 127 

ject of polygiiiiiy, all tilings are plain ; but take 
the crround that the connection was in itself 
sinful, and the Bible is a mass of contradictions 
— prohibiting a tiling that is sinful in itself, yet 
never uttering one word of censure against the 
j^ractice. It will be said, in reply to this view 
of the subject, that good men often committed 
sin, and we are not, therefore, to follow their 
example. Thus Noah was a good man — the 
only righteous man before God in liis genera- 
tion — and still he was drunk; we might, there- 
fore, argue from this that drunkenness was no 
sin. Abraham sacriiiced the truth by saying 
that Sarah was his sister instead of his vyife, 
and, therefore, we might argue that lying was 
110 sin. David was guilty of adultery and mur- 
der, but he was " a man after God's own heart ;'' 
therefore, there is no sin in such things. We 
have stated these things in their full latitude 
because they are often brought forward by the 
opponents of slavery to show that it, although 
practised by the patriarchs and pious men of 
old, is a sin, and adduce the examples which we 
have already stated as parallel cases. Now the 
question is — are they parallel ? Do the Scrip- 
tures of the Old Testament class slavery with 
drunkenness, lying, murder and adultery V Are 



128 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 

not these last treated and condemned as sin, 
while the other is authorised and laws laid down 
for the government of tlie master and slave ? 
This is the correct statement of the whole mat- 
ter. We have shown that slavery was not con- 
demned by the writers of the Old Testament. 
We will now show that lying, drunkenness, 
murder and adultery were all expressly con- 
demned ; that these sins of good men, such as 
Noah, Solomon, and David, were written for 
our loarning^ and not for our imitation. The 
sixth, seventh and ninth commandments con- 
demn these sins ; of course, we do not say that 
they were, or are, unpardonable, but they re- 
quire deep penitence and humiliation, and such 
is the recorded fact about David. The fifty-first 
Psalm was written after the commission of his 
crime, and is usually called a penitential Psalm. 
This is plain from the title of the Psalm : '' A 
Psalm of David, when Nathan, the prophet, 
came unto him, after he had gone in to Bath- 
sheba." "Have mercy upon me, O Lord, 
according to thy loving kindness; according 
unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot 
out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly 
from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin, 
for I acknowledge my transgressions, and my 



POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 129 

sin is ever before me. Against thee only liave 
I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight.'' 
[Psahn li, 1-4.] There was evidently a wide 
difterenee in the case of his taking " Abigail, the 
Carmelitess," when Kabal, her husband, was 
dead, in addition to "Aliinoani, the Jezerelitess," 
and his taking Bath-sheba. In the one case there 
was no reproof given ; in the other he was 
charged with the crimes of adultery and mur- 
der. This shows conclusively that polygamy 
was not treated as adultery under the Old Tes- 
tament dispensation. By the law of Moses a 
drunkard was to be stoned to death. [Deut. 
xxi, 20, 21] "If the parents shall say to the 
elders of the city, This, our son, is stubborn and 
rebellious, he is a glutton and ?. drunkard, and 
all the men of his city shall stone him with 
stones that he die." [8ee also Proverbs xxiii, 
29, 30.] " Woe unto them that rise up early in 
the morning that they may follow strong drink, 
that continue until night till wine inflame them," 
[Isaiah v, 11.] Besides all this, the apostle [1st 
Corinthians vi, 10] says expressly : "Drunkards 
shall not inhei'it the Kingdom of God." In 
Gal. V, 19-21, the same thing is said. We, 
of course, understand these passages as teaching 
that the habitual drunkard is excluded from 



130 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 

Heaven. A man may be overtaken in sin, re- 
pent, reform and obtain forgiveness; but so 
long as a man continues a drunkard he is ex- 
cluded from the happiness of the blessed. 
Murder is expressly forbidden in the sixth com- 
mandment ; lying is prohibited in the ninth. 
Moreover, there was an express law forbidding 
falsehood. " Ye shall not steal, neither deal 
falsely, neither lie one to another." [Levit. xix, 
11.] "All liars shall have their portion in the 
lake that burnetii with fire and brimstone." 
[Rev. xxi, 8.] "There shall in no wise enter 
into Heaven anything that defileth, or worketh 
abomination, or that maketh a lie." [See verse 
22, same chapter.] After this examination of 
the matter, then, who dare say that slavery is 
classed in the Scriptures with drunkenness, ly- 
ing, murder and adultery ? Do you dare say 
that God approvtd the sins of good men ? We 
have been thus full on these points, as this is a 
favorite theme for the soj^hist and disturber of the 
peace of communities to dwell on. We have at 
tempted to show that there is no parallel between 
the two cases compared. But, it is assumed that 
slavery is a sin in itself] then, it is classed with 
sins which are acknowledged by all to be con- 
demned. The premises are false — at least one 



POLYGAMY AXD SLAVERY. 131 

brancli of the premises — and, of eourse, tlie 
conclusion is e([ual]y false. 

It only remains now for ns to show that poly- 
gamy is prohibited in the New Testament. 
The passage in which it is understood that po- 
lygamy is forbidden is found in Matthew xix, 
3-9, inclusive. The Pharisees proposed a ques- 
tion to Christ for the ])urj)ose of entangling 
him — to render him obnoxious to the Jews by 
getting him to decide against the law of Moses. 
"Is it lawful for a man to })ut away his wife for 
every 'cause?'" The immediate point which 
they wished Him to decide was the lawfulness 
or unlawfulness of divorce. This He settled by 
referring to tlie original institution of marriage,, 
that at the beginning God created them male 
and female. " And said, for this cause shall a 
man leave father and mother, and shall cleave 
unto his wife; and the twain shall be one flesh;: 
wherefore, they are no more twain, but one 
flesh. Wliat, therefore, God hath joined to- 
other, let no man put asunder.-"' They under- 
stood that by this construction He condemned 
the provision of the Mosaic law, which allowed 
them to divorce or put away their wives. 
They, therefore, ask Him, "Why did Moses 
then command to o,ive a writinu' of divorcement. 



132 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 

an<l to put lieraway?" He replies — "Moses^ 
because of the hardness of your hearts, suiFered 
you to put away your wives ; but from the be- 
o-inuino: it was not so." The folio wino" verse 
(9th) contains the prohibition of polygamy. 
" Whoever shall put away his wife, except it be 
for fornication, and shall marry another, com- 
raitteth adultery ; and whoso marrieth her which 
is put away doth commit adultery." Whoever, 
therefore, shall put away his wife, except for the 
reason or for the commission of the crime of 
fornication, and shall marry another, is an adul- 
terer, because his former wife is still living. He 
would not be guilty of adultery if polygamy 
were still innocent, for this state of things al- 
ways contemplates the existence ©f two or more 
wives at the same time. 

Christ, then, by this inter23retation, or authori- 
tative decision, has made polygamy a state of 
continued adultery. All that is necessary to 
constitute a man a polygamist, according to this 
decision, is, that he put away his wife without 
just cause — that she be living at the time of his 
second marriage. Neither is it necessary that 
the parties should be living together, for the 
man that marries the woman who is thus put 
away, commits adultery because her former 



POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 133 

liiisbaDd is still living. This is, obviously, the 
meaning of the ninth verse. There are two- 
causes in the New Testament for which a man 
may, lawfully, demand and obtain a divorce ^' 
that is, infidelity on the part of the wife, or 
adultery. Tlie woman lias the same right where 
her husband is uniaitliful, or is guilty of adul- 
tery. The other cause of divorce is the wilful 
desertion of either of the parties. " If the un- 
believing depart, let him depart. A brother or 
a sister is not under bondage in such cases. 
But God hath called us to peace." [1st Cor. 
vii, 15.] For either of these two causes a man 
may obtain a divorce from his wife, or a woman 
from her husband, and the innocent party marry 
the second time and not be guilty of adultery, 
although the other party may be still living. 
Dr. Dwight gives, substantially, the same inter- 
pretation of Matthew xix, 3-9. He says, "J^o- 
lygcuny is forhlddtn in (this) tJie te,rt. Here, 
the man Avho puts away his wife, and marries 
another, is declared to commit adultery. In 
what does this adultery consist ? Certainly not 
in putting away the former wife. A man may, 
obviously, leave his wife, or a woman her hus- 
band, and yet neither of them be at all guilty 
of this sin. T/ie adultery^ then, consists in the 



134 POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 

fact that the man marries a second wlfe^ while 
the first is living. But, this is always done in 
polygamy. Polygamy is, therefore, a continued 
state of adultery. [Theology, vol. 3, p. 420.] 
Wlierevor the subject of marriage is spoken of, 
either as a doctrine or precept, there is no inti- 
mation that marriage is to be between more 
than one man and one woman at the same time. 
The terms hushaiid and loife are always used 
by the writers of the lN"ew Testament — not 
husbands and wives — in the singidar^ and not 
in the plural number, when the subject of mar- 
riage is under discussion. "It is good for a 
man not to touch a woman ; nevertheless, to 
avoid fornication, let every man have his own 
wife^ and let every w^oman have her own hus- 
hand.''"' [1st Cor. vii, 1-5.] The qualification 
of a bishop is that he " must be blameless — the 
husband of one ynfey [1st Tim. iii, 1-7.] 
There is, then, this distinction made between 
the matter of polygamy under the Old and New 
dispensations : under the New Testament it is 
shown and declared by Christ to be adultery^ 
and therefore wrong ; under the Old Testament 
dispensation, polygamy was not treated as adul- 
tery, for God did not reprove David for taking 
Abigail, the former wife of Nabal, when he was 



POLYGAMY AND SLAVERY. 135 

dead, altlioiigli he then had Ahinoam. [Sec 
1st Samuel xxv, 43, and 2d Samuel iii, 2.] But 
when he had committed sin with Bath-sheba 
the wife of Uriah, he was reproved by Nathan, 
the prophet, under the direction and immediate 
instruction of Jehovah. The sin was not in his 
taking Bath-sheba — for he then had two wives 
— but his first defiling her, and then securing 
the death of her husband. "Xow, therefore,'- 
says Nathan, "the sword shall never depart 
from thine house because thou hast despised 
me and taken the wife of Uriah, the Hittite, to 
thy wife." [2d Samuel xii, 10.] If polygamy 
had been treated as adultery, David would have 
been guilty of the crime hefure he took Bath- 
sheba, for he then had two wives at least. But 
polygamy is now forbidden by Christ ; and to 
take more wives than one at the siune time is a 
violation of ajmsitive moral law. 

In concluding this chapter, then, we will 
make a remark or two of some practical impor- 
tance. It is wrong and contrary to the whole 
spirit of the Bible to attempt to excuse, or pal- 
liate, our sin on the ground that another person 
is guilty of a different kind of sin. Thus many 
have attempted to justify slavery on the ground 
that those who oppose it are guilty of great 



136 POLYG A M Y A N D SL AY ER Y . 

sins tlieraselYes. If I get drunk it is no excuse, 
or palliation of ray sins, that my neighbor is 
guilty of fraud, or theft. His theft does not 
make ray drunkenness right. If the anti-slaYery 
man, at the North, refuses to glYe of his means 
to aid, substantially, the poor at his own door, 
but spends his sympathy on a class of men who 
happen to be the bond-serYants of Southern 
men, that does not make the system of domestic 
slavery right. It must be established on better 
grounds than this. We, then, design to meet 
the question fairly; and, hence, we will by no 
means substitute a^juse for argumeid. Still, we 
AYould be prepared to give better advice to 
others, if we were free from sin ourselves. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 137 



CHAPTER YII. 

DOES THE XEVV- TESTAMENT CONDEMN SLAVERY ASA SIN 
IN ITSELF? 

We have shown, in a former cliapter, (olh) 
that sLiveiy was recognized and regulated — nay, 
that the Jews were authorized to buy shaves of 
the heathen round about them, and of the stran- 
gers who sojourned among them; that they were 
allowed, or authorized, to hold them as a pos- 
session to tlicmselves and entail them as an in- 
heritance on their children. The la^Y recoo-. 
nized them as property, and gave them power 
to sell them. This is taken for granted; for 
the man who had purchased a maid, either as a 
wife for himself, or son, and afterwards changed 
his mind, he was expressly forbidden to sell her, 
or to make merchandize of her, "because he 
had humbled her." "To sell her to a strange 
nation he shall have no power, seeing that he 
hath dealt deceitfully with her." [Exodus xxi 
8.] We have shown that divorce was permitted 
by the law of Moses. But Christ has shown 
I* 



138 TilE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

and decided that, unless it is done for fornica- 
tion, or willful desertion, it is sinful, and those 
who divorce their wives for any other cause are 
adulterers, and that the man who marries a 
divorced woman "doth commit adultery." 
[Matthew xix, 9.] Polygamy was not treated 
as sinful under the former dispensation, for a 
woman who was divorced for any cause might 
become the wife of another man. " Let him 
write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in 
her hand, and send her out of his house; and 
when she is departed out of his house, she may 
go and be another man's wife."" [See Deut. 
xxiv, 1— i.] She was not considered an adul- 
teress, nor the man who married her who "had 
been put away" did not commit adultery, al- 
though her former husband was still living. 
Polygamy, then, under the Xew Testament, is 
treated as perpetual or contemned adultery by 
the teaching of Christ, as Ave showed in the last 
chapter. The law of Moses did not expressly 
authorize a man to take more than one wife, 
but it did authorize the Hebrews to buy bond- 
men and bond-maids. These thinars should be 
kept in mind by the reader. 

The question, then, comes up, Is slavery 
forbidden By the teaching of Christ and his in- 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 139 

spired apostles? If they did not forbid men to 
hold slaves, but I'ecognized the relation as law- 
ful, then the question is forever settled, as it is 
acknowledged by all, who reeognize the Bible as 
the will of God, as the rule of faith and prac- 
tice, that "the New Testament was not given, 
Hike the Mosaic law, to one people, but to the 
whole race; not for one period, but for all time. 
If, therefore, it tolerates slavery really and 
truly — ii' this is the doctrine of our Saviour, it 
justifies this institution to all men." [Way- 
land's Letters on Slavery, p. 78.] We have 
•quoted this passage to show the views of the 
■opponents of the system of slavery. The writer 
;admits that if the Xew Testament tolerates 
slavery — if this is the doctrine of the Saviour, 
it justifies slavery to all men. Well, then, we 
are no^v fairly at the point where comes the tug 
of war. Here is our last refuge, according to 
the opponents of slavery. We accept the con- 
dition, and if we are driven from this strong- 
hold, we must surrender. This we will do 
only wdien we find that we can no longer main- 
tain the contest, or when continued resistance 
would be madness or folly. 

If w^e understand Dr. Wayland in his Letters 
»on Slavery and his Moral Science, he does not 



140 T"E NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

pretend that Christ, or liis ajiostles, liave ex- 
pressly forbidden slavery in so many words as 
they did lying, stealing, drunkenness, murder, 
fornication, adultery, licentiousness, idolatry 
and covetousness, but that they have laid down 
certain principles which virtually abolish slavery. 
If we are not mistaken, this is the position of 
men wlio receive and reverence the Bible, and 
are willing to abide by its teachings, but are 
opposed to the system of domestic slavery. As 
this is their position, and as Dr. Wayland's 
'^' Moral Science" is adopted as a text book on 
the subject of morals in many of our colleges, 
and as many of our children will read his chap- 
ter on the "modes in wliich personal liberty may 
be violated," it seems that we should notice his 
arguments, if they deserve to be dignified by 
that name, and remove them out of the way, 
and then we will be better prepared to examine 
and appreciate the teachings of Christ and his 
apostles on the subject. We had not intended 
to have noticed these things ; but, for the rea- 
sons already stated, probably, many would be 
disposed to think that the Doctor's arguments 
are unanswerable, and that we, therefore, had 
-dodged them. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 141 

We will now address ourselves to these 
positions, and attempt to show that they are 
contrary to the teachings of the Bible, and 
that liis interpretation of the New Testament 
makes it contradict and virtually set aside other 
2)oi-tions of itself. 

A favoi'ite argument with the oi)ponents of 
slavery may be stated as follows, viz : " It is 
contrary to the law of nature — it is a violation 
of the plainest dictates of natural justice. That 
'all men are created equal, that they are en- 
dowed by their Creator with certain inalien- 
able rights ; that among these are life, liberty 
and the pursuit of happiness.' " This, we be- 
lieve, is a fail- statement of the argument. 
What is meant by " the law of nature," we are 
not sure that we distinctly understand. If by 
the "law of nature" is meant a state of thino-s 
unrestrained by the laws of civilized society, 
then a state of nature, or the law or rule by 
which thino's are manaojed in such a condition is, 
that mUjht constitutes rights and the strongest 
has the dominion — the weak being subjected to 
the will of the stronij^. This is so in sava^re 
countries. Slavery, instead of beino: contrarv 
to such a state, or condition, is one of its ele- 
ments ; if it does not exist in foinn^ it does in 



142 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

reality. So that it is in accordance with a na- 
tural state ; that is, in a place where the laws 
of civilization and Christianity are unknown. 
There is no such thing as true liberty in what is 
generally called a state of nature. If it is 
meant by "the law of nature " that there is some- 
thing in the nature of God and man, and the 
relation which man sustains to God, that con- 
demns slavery, then the position is equally false. 
We are persuaded that the idea is that "all men 
are created equal^'''' not in mental or physical 
ability, but all have an equal right by the law 
of creation to use or enjoy tlie means of happi- 
ness as they may choose, mirestrained by the 
will or authority of any creature. This is cer- 
tainly the meaning that Dr. Wayland attaches 
to the first sentence of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. [Moral Science p. 207.] If, then, 
as he would have it, every restraint of society on 
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is 
wrong, a man may take it into his head that his 
happiness is best promoted by stealing rather 
than working, and no one must say nay, for he 
has the right to pursue his happiness as he will. 
" The equality here spoken of is, in the right 
to use them — the means of happiness — as he 
will." The absurdity of such a doctrine as this 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 14 



f> 



needs only to be stated to be rejected. We 
are considering tlie question of slavery in the 
light of tlie Bible, not by the theories of men ; 
we, therefore, join issue with the doctrine that 
"all men are created equal." That such 'icas 
the case at the begiiniing, before the entrance 
of sin, no one disputes. That man, and woman 
too, were created equal, we do not deny ; but 
we contend that that equality has been de- 
stroyed, or taken away by the express doing of 
the Creator himself, and that it was taken away 
as a punishment for sin. This we have shown 
clearly in a former part of this work, and the 
Bible recognizes this subordination of the wife 
to her husband. " Wives, submit yourselves un- 
to your own husbands as unto the Lord, for the 
husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ 
is the head of the church, and lie is the Sa- 
vior of the body ; therefore, as the church is 
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their 
own husbands in everything." [Eph. v, 22-24.] 
"Likewise, ye wives, bo in subjection to your 
own husbands." [1st Peter iii, 1.] " Wives, 
submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as^ 
it is fit, in the Lord." [Col. iii, 18.] Why, 
then, is it fit that wives should submit them- 
selves to their own husbands, when they were 



1 44 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

both created equal as to the rio-lit to rule 'i 
Simply because sin has deranged the relations 
of men ; simply because God has inflicted this 
subjection on women as a punishment for sin. 
Whatever, then, may have been the original 
equality of men and the freedom of their per- 
sons, God has taken away this freedom as a 
pnnishinent of sin, and subjected the race of 
Ham to the will of the other two great divis- 
ions of the human family. "Cursed be Canaan: 
a servant of servants shall he be unto his breth- 
ren." [Gen. ix, 25-27.] 

Xow, the only question is, does the Xew 
Testament recognize this relation of master and 
slave by enjoining obedience on the part of the 
slave? \(q will quote at this time only one 
or two passages on the subject, as the matter of 
the mutual duties of masters and slaves will 
come up hereafter. " Servants, be obedient to 
them that are your masters according to the 
flesh, with singleness of your heart, as unto 
Christ." [Ephes. vi, 5.] " Servants, obey in 
all things your masters according to the flesh; 
not with eye service, as raen-pleasers." [Col.^ 
ch. iii, 22-25.] These things show as clear as 
anything that all men are not now born equal, 
as to rank or place in society. " They are en_ 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 145 

dowed by their Creator witli certain inalien- 
able rights ; among these are Hfe, hberty and 
the pursuit of happiness." By an "inalienable 
vio-ht" we understand somethino' that cannot be 
transferred to another, or taken by another, 
witliout some injustice. Xo human power, 
then, has the authority to take away an inalien- 
able rio-ht. Whatever inalienable riu-ht all men 
had before the Hood, Ave care not to say. 
Whatever may have been the original equality 
of men, and the consequent right to liberty, or 
personal freedom, they all have not the same ina- 
lienable right to liberty now. Xo human power 
has the authority in itself to take away per- 
sonal liberty, unless authorized by the Creator 
who gave it. God, then, has taken away this 
personal liberty of the descendants of Ham, 
and given the authority to the descendants of 
Shem and Japheth to hold Ham's posterity in 
servitude. [Gen. ix, 25.] This dominion of 
the white and yellow races over the black race 
was given to them by Jehovah. God inflicted 
slavery as a punishment of sin. This authority 
was given before the Mosaic law to the Jews 
was revealed. It was not a grant to the Jews, 
but to all the descendants of Shem and Japheth, 
and then it was not local or temporary. The 



146 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

recognition of slavery under the law, or Jewish 
economy — the authority to bay slaves of the 
heathen — was only to show the design and pur- 
pose of God, that his word was in harmony 
with his expressed purpose. So, that, if there 
was not a single word said in the New Testa- 
ment about the matter, there could be no sin in 
slavery, unless God had withdrawn the grant 
He had given to Shem and Japheth by Xoah ; 
but, on the contrary, the New Testament har- 
monizes with the teaclnngs of the Old Testa- 
ment on the subject, and the only way to evade 
this conclusion is to reject both as the will of 
God to man. The slave has a right to his life. 
No one can justly take it away without he is 
guilty of crime, nor has he the right to destroy 
his own life ; but, certainly, the law of Moses 
made a difference between the slaying of a ser- 
vant and that of a free ])erson. " If a man 
smite his servant or his maid with a rod and he 
die under his hand, he shall surely be punished," 
It is not said, "he shall surely be put to death." 
This phraseology seems to convey the idea that 
the punishment, though sure, was to be in ac- 
cordance with the circumstances which made 
the crime more or less atrocious. This view of 
the matter is favored by the follov\'ing verse 



THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAVERY. 147 

" Xot with standing, if he continue a day oi- two, 
he shall not be punished, for he is Jtis money. '''' 
[Ex. xxi, 20, 21.] It could not be supposed 
that he intended to commit murder, and, as the 
death of his slave vrould be a considerable loss, 
so he was not to be punished if the slave lived 
a day or two after the beating. In the case of 
the manslaughter of a slave the master was not 
to be molested, but enjoyed his liberty. On 
the other hand, when one free person killed an- 
other, he was to fly immediately to the city of 
refuge ; he was to have a fair trial, and, if it 
appeared that the murder was committed "una- 
wares," or without "enmity," the slayer was to 
be delivered out of the hand of the avenger of 
blood, and returned to the city of refuge, 
where he was to stay within the limits of the 
city until the death of the priest who was living- 
there when he entered. Man-slaying — that is. 
killing a free person by one of the same class — 
was thus punished by a life-time confinement ; 
for, if the avenger of blood found the slayer 
out of his bounds, he might kill him and not be 
guilty of murder. [Num. xxxv.] 

Thus have we examined this "law of nature" 
argument, and find it full of Scriptural error. 
Dr. \yayland professes great respect for the 



148 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

Bible, yet he sets the Bible aside and makes a 
raau's own will the law by which he is to be 
governed in the pursuit of happiness. " That 
the equality here spoken of is not of the means 
of hap})iness, l)nt in the rigid to use tliein as we 
will is too evident to need illustration.'' [Moral 
Science p. 207.] Tlie cmpliasis is our own, but 
it shows the real gist of the declaration, and is 
an error of great i)ractical magnitude in sound 
morality. If men have a right to use the means 
of happiness as they will, then they may pur- 
sue any course, regardless of the laws of God 
or man. All that a man has to do is to pursue 
his own selfish purposes, for he may do anything 
that his selfish nature may dictate — he has the 
right to use the means of happiness as he will. 
This is calculated to cultivate pride, anger, cru- 
elty, selfishness and licentiousness. If this view 
of the matter is correct, then every form of evil 
and excess can be justified, for these are the 
v'ery things which the depraved and sinful na- 
ture of men will lead them to pursue. If men 
wxn^e holy and sinless, then such things would 
not be dangerous ; but, man being a sinner, 
there is a necessity for a law to govern him 
higher than his own depravity. If men were 
holy, they would not desire to do anything 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 149 

wrong; but, as it is, they must bo prevented by 
law, and that from the most rigid authority — 
from no less authority than that of the Creator 
— from using the means of happiness in sueh a 
way as to interfere with the lights and happi- 
ness of others. 

The argument the Doctor draws against 
slavery from the disastrous eftect it has upon 
the morals of both parties [page 209] is based 
on the abuse of the system. All correct logi- 
cians admit the abuse of a thing is no fair argu- 
ment against it. On this principle of condenm- 
ing a thing for the abuse of it, we might 
contend that there was no suchthino-as g-enuine 
religion because wicked men i)rofessing it have 
used it for the gratitication of their own selfish 
passions and lusts, and under its sacred name 
have murdered thousands of their fellow crea- 
tures. The abuses of slavery do not prove that 
it is a sin in itself It must be shown from a 
higher source than this ; we, tlierefore, dismiss 
this argument. 

The next argument, drawn from the effects of 
slavery on national vealtk^ [p^gf" 210] is a mere 
matter of expediency^ and proves nothing as to 
the sin or innocence of the system. This is a 
matter for those who are encjai^fed in the culti- 



150 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON BLAVEKY. 

'vatioii 01 tlie soil to determine for themselves, 
if men find that slave labor is cheaper than free 
labor, they are at liberty to use that kind of la- 
bor, if slave labor is not sinful ; so that this 
question lies back of that of expediency. If 
there is no more harm in employing one kind of 
labor in preference to another, the question, 
then, is simply one of expediency ; but, if slave- 
ry is sinful in itself, then, of course, every man 
that would be innocent will employ free labor. 
The argument, then, does not touch the point 
at issue. We dismiss this part of the Doctor's 
argument, and take up those he draws from the 
New Testament against slavery. 

"The moral precepts of the Bible are diamet- 
rically opposed to slavery. They are, 'Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor- as thyself; and all things 
whatsoever ye would that men should do unto 
you, do ye even so to them.'" [Page 211.] 
"The application of these precepts is universal." 
" Our neighbor is every one lohoni ive may bene- 
Jit,'''' We Avould like to ask the Doctor a few 
plain questions about this matter. Who is not 
my neighbor ? Is every one in the world my 
neighbor ? Do you reply yes, I deny that you 
are correct. Are my parents my neighbors ? 
Is my wife, my clrildx my brother, my sister, 



ME NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 1 51 

each one my neighbor? Every candid man 
must say they are not. Neither is my servant 
my neighbor; he is not my neighboi", he is simply 
my servant, and my duty to him is not properly 
embraced in the precept, " Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as tliyself." My parents are not my 
neighbors, and ai-e not embraced in this precept, 
for the separate command is "Plonor thy father 
and thy mother." " Children, obey your pa- 
rents in the Lord, for tliis is right." (Ephes. vi, 
1, 2.) My child is not my neighbor in the sense 
of this precept. " Ye fathers, provoke not your 
children to wrath, but bring them up in the 
nurture and admonition of the Lord." My 
brother, or my sister — persons born of the same 
parents — are not properly my neighbors within 
the design of this precejjt, neither was it the 
design of Christ so to teach in the parable of 
the good Samaritan. (Luke x, 25-37.) He 
has shown us that even a citizen of the same 
nation is not a neighbor in the true sense of the 
word when he fails to relieve his brother of the 
same nation. A neighbor, in the sense of this 
parable, is one who relieves a fellow man in dis- 
tress, Avhether he be of the same nation or not. 
Thus, the man who lives in the same vicinity 
with me may not be a neighbor in the true sense 



152 THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAA'ERY. 

of the word ; whenever he fails to relieve me in 
my distress he is not a neighbor. Still, this 
does not prove that my w^ife, my child, or my 
servant, are each my neighbor. To apply this 
precept in the sense Dr. Wayland applies it to 
the subject of slavery, would destroy all the 
lawful relations of life, confound the distinctions 
which are made and recognized by the Bible, 
and make the human race one mass of beings 
on terms of perfect equality. His interpretation 
of the precept would be a general levelling of 
all men, women, children, ruler and ruled, mas- 
ter and servant, into one confused and undistin- 
guished mass. This, to our mind, is the clear 
and logical consequence of his construction of 
the passage, "God is not the author of con- 
fusion" — especially of such confusion as this 
interpretation of his word would produce. We 
must then interpret the Scriptures so that one 
passage or part will not conti'adict another. 
The precept must then be understood so as not 
to interfere Avith or destroy the established and 
recojxnized relations of life. To show the com- 
plete absurdity of the anti-slavery sense of the 
precept, " tliou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
self," a simple illustration will be sufficient ; for 
-example, a friend asks me how my family is. I 



TlIE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 153 

reply, my neighbors are all in good health. lie 
replies, I enquired about the health of yonr 
faniil]/^ and not about your neighbors:. In an- 
swer I tell him that Dr. Wayland has taught 
that my tamily — my children — but especially 
my servants — are tni/ neighbors. My friend 
would conclude that I was laboring under some 
mental derangement, and he would not be very 
far mistaken about my mental soundness in 
adopting Dr. Wayland's definition of neighbors. 
The anti-slavery interpretation of the precept, 
'' all things whatsoever ye would that men 
should do unto you, do ye even so to them," is 
equally absurd with that which we have already 
noticed. The bearing of this precept on the 
subject of slavery, according to Dr. Wayland, 
we suppose to be something like this : If I were 
a slave and should desire my master to set me 
free, then I am bound by tiie teaching of this 
precei)t to free my servant ; or, if I were a 
child, and should desire to be free from the re- 
straints and government of my parents, then, 
as a parent, I am bound to free my child from 
all restraint, and let him use the means of hap- 
piness as he will. But, Dr. Wayland says this 
is not a i:»ropcr ajjplication of the principle, for 
the child is connnanded to obey his parent. 



154 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

'' Children, obey your parents." We also reply 
that the same authority says : " Servants, obey 
in all things your masters according to the 
flesh." Now, it would require all the mental 
acuteness of Jesuitical casuistry to tell where 
and in Avhat manner these two commands dif- 
fered in point of clearness and authority. If 
the precept, then, extends to the personal lib- 
erty of the slave, it does equally to the personal 
liberty of a child to a judge on the bench pass- 
ing sentence on the criminal — for the judge is 
bound, according to Dr. Wayland's interpreta- 
tion of the matter, if lie should desire — he be- 
ing the criminal — to be set free and exempted 
from the penalty of the law, to turn the crimi- 
nal loose. We cannot see how or in what 
manner these conclusions can be evaded, for. 
Dr. Wayiand says "that the obligation respects 
all things whatsoever ?"* Why not to the subver- 
sion of any other relation as well as that of 
master and slave ? It is a kind of universal 
particular obligation that may be applied in one 
case and not applied in all other similar cases. 
The truth of the matter is, that if the precept 
were interpreted and practically observed in 
Dr. Wayland's sense, it would produce com- 
plete socialism^ in wdiich all distinctionE — such 



TIIK NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAYKRY. 155 

as husband and wife, parent and cliild, ruler 
and subject, master and servant — would be 
completely abolished ; all have all things com- 
mon, viz: wild and foolish, do as you please 
under the fldse name of liberty. 

That we are not mistaken in our view and the 
certain consequences which would follow from 
the particular^ application of the anti-slavery in- 
terpretation of this precept, let the foUoAving 
speak for itself: " Xow, were this precept 
obeyed, it is manifest that slavery could not in 
fact exist for a single instant. The principle of 
the precept is absolutely subversive of the prin- 
ciple of slavery. That of the one," that is, of 
the precept, " ^s the entire equality of right ; 
that of the other (slavery) the entire absorption 
of the rights of one in the rights of the other."" 
The emphasis is our own, but the teaching is 
Dr. Wayland's. (Moral Science, p. 211.) 

In order, then, to establish the fact that this 
precept subverts and overthroAvs slavery, it is 
necessary lirst to prove that slavery is a sin. 
The passage, then, must be so understood as 
not to interfere with the established relations of 
society. The precept contains a general princi- 
ple which was intended to apply to all cases of 
returning good for evil. We are not to be evil 



156 TLIE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

because others are evil, not to be unkind to the 
unthankful and the ungrateful, but we are to 
imitate God who bestows on us blessings al- 
though we are unworthy. This is plainly the 
meaning of the precept, from the illustration 
which the Savior uses. If my child or servant 
were to ask me for bread, or meat, and I were 
to give a stone instead of bread, and a serpent — 
something unfit for food — I w^ould be a violator 
of the principle of this prece})t. If I would 
not desire to be tantalized when hungry with 
sometliing which is unfit for food, so I ought 
not to ofier that to another which I would re- 
fuse myself; for, " if ye, being evil, know how to 
give good gifts unto your children, how much 
more shall your Father, which is in Heaven, 
srive sfood thino-s to them that ask him there- 
for." As a conclusion, from the fact that God 
will give us good instead of evil things, " all 
things whatsoever ye would that men should do 
to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew vii, 
7-12.) That this doing good to those that are 
evil, teaches the abolition of slavery, seems to us 
at least a deduction by no means justified by 
the text and its connections. I miofht as well 
infer that it abolished monarchy, or any other 
thing which I did not happen to like. In this 



THE NKW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 15T 

dislike of slavery lies the whole secret of this 
construction of the passage by anti-slavery mer. 
Then, look at the universal confusion such an 
interpretation would make of other portions of 
the Bible. This is all the revelation we would 
need, if Dr. Wayland's view of the matter is 
the right one. But he had set out to prove 
that slavery was wroni>- in itself, and if the Xew 
Testament would not say so in so many words, 
he would. 

We have shown heretofore that there is a 
certain order and dependence in all God's 
works, from the highest archangel down to the 
lowest worm, and that these thino-s are rccoii'- 
nizcd by the Bible in the various relations 
which all tilings sustain to each other. The 
harmony and continued well-being of the uni- 
verse depend on keeping everything in its 
proper place ; and, when anything gets or is 
put out of its place, confusion follows as a cer 
tain and necessary consequence. Now, apply 
this principle to any of the rational creatures of 
God. When "angels would be Gods," they 
became devils ; wdien man would be as God — 
"knowing good and evil" — he became a sinner, 
and lost communion with God. In the same 
manner if children are made parents, and usurp 

X 



158 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

their authority, they are invading a province to 
which they have no Scriptural right. If mas- 
ters make their servants equal with themselves, 
they will serve them as Hagar did her mistress : 
they Avill despise them. Among the four sorts 
of persons that are intolerable, Solomon men- 
lions a " servant when he reigneth." He is out 
of his j^lace ; forgets himself, and is, of all oth- 
ers, most imperious, pompous and insolent; for 
such a thing the earth is " disquieted and cannot 
bear it." It introduces confusion and every 
disorder. 

From all these considerations w^e conclude 
that the precept which we have been consider- 
ing is " not diametrically opposed to slavery," 
and that it was not designed to destroy any of 
those relations, the mutual duties of which are 
prescribed in other parts of the New Testament. 
We will dismiss Dr. Wayland for the present, 
and proceed to inquire into a correct answer to 
the question proposed in the beginning of this 
chapter. 

Does the Xew Testament condemn slavery as 
a sin in itself? or, has Christ or his insj^ired 
apostles, either by precept or example, taught 
that slavery is a sin in itself? And here, before 
entering on the direct examination of the ques- 



THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAVERY: 159 

tion, we remark that tlie neglect or failure to 
discharge the duties belonging to or growing 
out of some relations of life does not prove 
that relation to be wrong ^ or sinful in itself. 
Thus, the neglect of the parent to perform the 
duties he owes to his child does not prove that 
the relation of parent and child is sinful in it- 
self; or, the failure of the husband or the wife 
to perform their proj)er duties does not prove 
that the relation of husband and wife is sinful 
in itself: so the failure of the master or the slave 
to perform their appropriate duties does not 
prove that the relation is sinful. The neglect 
of the duties growing out of the relations of 
life constitutes the sin, and not the existence of 
these relations. This jumbling of two things 
which are altogether distinct, has furnished the 
material for many a senseless tirade against 
slavery and slaveholders. The question means, 
Does Christ or his inspired apostles, either by 
precept or example teach that slavery is a sin in 
itselfV We say that neither has done so, and 
that they have neither by precept or by exam- 
ple condemned the slaveholder or taught that 
slavery was a sin in itself. 

In the examination of the teachings of the 
New Testament on the subject of slavery, we 



] 60 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY 

will notice two or three distinct points wliicli 
will prove that slnvery is not a sin in itself. 
We say, then, 

First — That tJiere are some things revealed 
in the Old Testament ichlrh are so clear that it 
was not necessary that they should he repeated 
or re-ena/^ted in the JSfein Testament. In otlier 
words, there were some things given to the 
human family that v\ere not temporary, or 
local — not confined to the Jewish nation — and, 
of course, did not pass away with the abroga- 
tion of the Mosaic economy. As an illustration 
of this position we may mention two or three 
examples. The first which we will produce is 
the right given by Jehovah to men by Noah to 
punish murder with death. ''Surely your blood 
of your lives will I require ; at the hand of 
every beast will I require it, and at the hand of 
men ; at the hand of every man's brother will 
I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth 
man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed ; 
for in the image of God made He man." (Gen. 
ix, 5, G.) On this is founded the right to punish 
the willful murderer with death. It was not 
given to th3 Jews, but to the whole race of 
man, and is of universal application. Every 
civilized or Christian nation claims this as the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAVERY. 161 

autlioiitv for putting to death the murderer. 
This authority is not repeated in the Xew Tes- 
tament. Ill accordance witli it the haw given 
to the Jews by Moses inflicted death for willful 
murder. (See Numbers xxxv.) 

Secondly — It is admitted by all that the 
moral law^ contained in the ten commandments 
is not local, or temporary, but universally bind- 
ing in every age and upon all men. The fourth 
and tenth commandments recognize the exist- 
ence of slavery. The fourth embraced the 
slave or perpetual bond-man, as well as the mere 
liired servant, as beino,- entitled to the rest of 
the Sabbath. " The seventh day is the Sabbath 
of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do 
any work — thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, 
nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor 
thy cattle, nor the stranger that is within thy 
gates." (Exodus xx, 10.) The tenth precept 
(verse 17) is, "Thou shalt not covet thy neigh- 
bor's house ; thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's 
wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, 
nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy 
neighbor's." Now, it will be necessary, on the 
part of the opponents of slavery, to show that 
these clauses of the fourth and tenth command- 
ments have been expressly repealed by the same 

N* 



162 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

authority that gave them. This, we are sure, 
cannot be done ; and, therefore, the New Tes- 
tament does not treat slavery as a sin in itself, 
but points out the mutual duties of masters and 
slaves. 

Now, the simple question is, Does the Old or 
New Testament prescribe the duties of any 
relation that is sinful in itself? Does it reofu- 
late the duties of the idolater as an idolater? 
No: "Thou shalt have no other Gods before 
me; thou shalt not make unto thee any graven 
image." This expressly prohibits it, and ex- 
pressly says that no idolater, nor covetous per- 
son who is an idolater, shall inherit the kingdom 
of God, but declares that idolaters with other 
characters " shall have tlieir part in the lake 
that burnetii with fire and brimstone, which is 
the second death." (Rev. xxi, 8 ; Col. iii, 5 : 
1st Cor. vi, 9, 10.) Drunkenness, fornication, 
theft, adultery, revilers, extortioners, effemi- 
nates, and the abusers of themselves, are ad- 
judged by the same authority and in the smne 
place to the same punishment ; all such persons 
and crimes are expressly condemned, but there 
is not one word about excluding the slavehold- 
ers from the kingdom of God. The thing, then, 
could not be and is not the crime or sin which 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLATERY. 163 

it is represented and declared to be l)y abolition 
orators and writers. 

There is one consolation to the Christian 
slaveholder; it is this: "To his ©w^n master 
he must stand or fall ;" not to those who set at 
defiance every law — sacred or human . There 
is one other consolation : abolition orators and 
writers are not entrusted with the keys of the 
kingdom of Heaven. Of this class the slave- 
holder expects no favors, and of them he has 
none to ask. We say these things in the fear 
of God, and with the certain knowdedge that 
w^e will have to account for all our words and 
actions to Ilim, who is to be our judge. 

We return to the main question before us. 
We have shown in a former cha]:>ter that God 
by a judicial sentence subjected the descend- 
ants of Ham to those of Shem and Japheth. 
This subordination of one part of the human 
family to the other was not made to the Jews — 
to one people ; it was not local and temporary, 
but the sentence of Jehovah was passed against 
the descendants of Ham while the whole race 
was together ; hence this decree, or sentence, 
was not confined to one period, or one nation, 
but it extended to all times and all people. 
This is true, unless it can be shown that God 



^64: THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

has reversed the sentence againt Hani's poster- 
ity — unless it can be shown that He has annulled 
his decree, No\v the question is, has He done 
so ? Has He restored all men to their original 
equality ? We think that no man will pretend 
to say that God has changed or reversed the 
sentence He passed on the descendants of Ham 
— making them servants to their brethren. If 
He has not changed this decision, then there is 
110 necessity to hunt for authority in the New 
Testament to prove that slavery is a sin in it- 
self. God has consigned the race of Ham to 
servitude for the sin of their father^ or as a pun- 
ishment for the sin of their father. We need 
not stay to prove that such things are common 
under the government of God, for all men par- 
take of a sinful nature in consequence of Adam's 
sin. " By one man sin entered into the world, 
and death by sin ; so that death passed upon all 
men, tor that all have sinned." (Rom. v, 12.) 
The case of the Jews is a living example of the 
fact to which we have referred. They are still 
scattered abroad — still a singular people — " a 
by -word and a hissing." The awful wrath of 
God still rests on their fathers' murder of Jesus 
Christ. But, has God reversed the sentence 
adjudging the race of Ham to servitude ? If 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 165 

He has, we liave never been able to find tlie 
book, the cliapter, or verse, in wliieli tlie revo- 
cation of the sentence is recorded. It is not 
recorded in tlie Old Testament, for the Jews 
were authorized to buy ])ond-men and bond- 
maids of the heathen — of the descendants of 
Hani. The revocation is not recorded in the 
New Testament — Dr. Waylaiid being judge. 
He admits that the Gospel does not directly 
forbid slavery for certain reasons Avhioh we will 
notice in the proper place : (Moral Science, pp. 
214,215.) "All that can be justly said seems 
to me to be this : the New Testament contains 
no precept prohibitory of slavery ; this must, J 
think, be granted." (Letters on Slavery, p. 89.) 
This concession is all that is necessary to the 
full establishment of our position. God's ad- 
judging part of the human family to servitude 
was not a grant to the Jews, but to the whole 
remaining part of the race, being given before 
the Jewish economy came into existence : not 
being dependent on that economy, it did not 
pass away with it, unless it is expressly reversed 
by Christ or his inspired apostles. This has not 
been done — our "enemies being judges ;" there- 
fore, it is not sinful in itself to hold any of the 
descendants of Ham in servitude, or bondage. 



166 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

i^^either do we say that a man is a sinner for 
not holdino- tliera. He commits no sin who 
does not own slaves, but we contend that the 
man who does own them, and holds them in 
bondage, is not guilty of sin. This explanation 
of the matter is much more satisfactory than 
that given by Dr. Wayland. He then says 
(Moral Science, pp. 215, 216) that if God had 
expressly forbidden slavery in the Xew Testa- 
ment, "its announcement would have been the 
signal of servile war ! " God, then, ^vas afraid 
to touch this peculiar and exceedingly sinful in- 
stitution because such a procedure would have 
produced a servile war ! According to this 
doctrine, then, all that men have to do, in order 
to prevent their indulgences in sin from being 
disturbed, is for large numbers to engage in its 
practice, and thus they may set at defiance the 
laws and authority of their Creator ; for, if he 
dares to prohibit their favorite sin, there will be 
war! " Dr. Wayland's answer to the question, 
" why was this manner of forbidding it chosen 
in preference to any other':'""' that is, why God 
chose to prohibit slavery indirectly, rather than 
by an express prohibitory law — for this is Dr. 
Wayland's position and account of the matter — 
is, beyond controversy, one of the weakest 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAYEKV. 167 

things tliat was ever put on record by that usu- 
ally clear and intelligent author. We will quote 
the j^assage at length, so that our readers may 
see that we do not misrepresent Dr. Wayland: 
"Why was this manner of forbidding it" 
(slavery) "chosen in preference to any other ? 
I reply that this question we are not obliged to 
answer." Still, he goes on to suggest what may 
have been the reason of this strange procedure 
on the jmrt of the Saviour and his apostles. 
"The reason," says he, ''^ may he that slavery is 
a social evil; and that, in order to eradicate it, 
a change must be effected in the society in whic-h 
it exists : and this change would be better 
effected by the inculcation of the principles 
themselves which are opposed to slavery, than 
by the inculcation of a direct precept. Proba- 
bly all social evils are thus most successfully 
remedied." " We answer again, this very 
course, which the Gospel takes on this subject, 
seems to have been the only one that could 
have been taken in order to effect the univer- 
sal abolition of slavery. The Gospel was de- 
signed not for one race, or for one time, but 
for all races and for all times. It looked not 
at the abolition of this form of evil for that age 
alone, but for its universal abolition. Hence, 



168 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

the important object of its Author was to gain 
a lodgment in every part of the known world; 
so that, by its universal diffusion among all 
classes of society, it might (juietly and peace- 
fully modify and subdue the evil passions of 
men,' and thus, without violence, work a revo- 
lution in the whole mass of mankind. In this 
manner alone could its object — a universal 
moral revolution — have been accomplished ; for, 
if it had forbidden the ei'il^ instead of subvert- 
ing the prbiciplf: — if it had ]:>roclaimed the un- 
lawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to resist 
the oppression of their masters, it would have 
instantly arraigned the two parties in deadly 
hostility tliroughout the civilized worhl ; its an- 
nouncement would liave been the signal of servile 
war ; and the very name of the Christian reli- 
gion would have been forgotten amidst the 
agitations of universal bloodshed." We have 
quoted this long extract not because of its in- 
trinsic merits, but on account of its weakness, 
and to show the absurdity of the reason here 
assigned for finding no direct precept in the 
New Testament against slavery. The whole of 
it is a tissue of speculation, and is merely said 
to throw dust in the eyes of the reader, to divert 
his attention from the real facts of the case, and 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 169 

is merely tlie substitution of a speculative opin- 
ion about the matter, instead of foots. Let us 
notice its parts. " The reason may he that 
slavery is a social evil." Social means, accord- 
ing to Webster, something "relating to men 
living in society, or to the public as an aggre- 
gate body, as .sc)<"/r^/ interests, or concei'ns, social 
pleasures." A thing, then, is a social evil Avhen 
it injures the interests of men, or their persons, 
in an aggregate body. Thus intemperance is a 
social vice, gaming is a social vice, and, accord- 
ing to Dr. Wayland, slavery is a social evil. It 
implies, also, that a great many are engaged in 
the evil practice : this is necessary to constitute 
a thing a social evil, or a social good, amuse- 
ment, or pleasure. 

Xow let us look at the case in the light of 
faets and history. There were many social evils 
in existence at the time Christ and his apos- 
tles lived: such as drunkenness, lewdness, for- 
nication and theft. The celebrated Spartan 
law-giver, Lycurgus, made many laws, and, 
according to one of these, the young were 
encouraged "to steal whatever they could, pro- 
vided they accomplished the theft without being 
detected." (Worcester's Elem. of History, p. 
20.) Lying was a common and social sin. 
o 



170 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLATERY. 

"The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow 
bellies," or gliittons. (Tit. i, 12.) However 
extensive slavery w^as practiced in tlie time of 
Christ, there was another social sin of more 
universal prevalence, and the express prohibition 
of it was more likely to produce civil or social 
war than any other form of sin ; it was inter- 
woven W'ith the very structure of ancient so- 
ciety ; the laws recognized it ; the greatest 
statesmen, orators and poets indulged in this 
evil, or sin ; the lives of human beings were of- 
ten taken away in its observance ; the vilest 
lewdness was practiced in connection with its 
rites; drunkenness was one of its accompani- 
ments : this universal and monster evil was 
idolatry. That w^e have not over-drawn the 
picture the reader has only to read the 1st chap- 
ter of Romans ; he wnll there see the moral 
condition of idolaters, and their sins j^ointed 
out — some of them so gross that it would be 
indecent even to name them, Now, the ques- 
tion is, Did the apostles connive at these sins ? 
Did they merely inculcate principles which are 
opposed to those social sins ? So far from pur- 
suing this cow^ardly course, they came out and 
mentioned these sins by name, and declared 
that such persons as continued in them would 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 171 

be excluded from tlie kingdom of God. " Know 
ye not tliat the un righteous sli.ill not inherit the 
kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither 
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, noi 
effeminates, nor abusers of themselves with 
mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunk- 
ards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit 
the kingdom of God; wherefore, my dearly be- 
loved, Hee from idolatry." (1st Cor. vi, 9, 10, 
10, U ; see also Gal. v, 19-21.) All such char- 
acters are declared to be worthy of the second 
death — are adjudged to the lake that burnetii 
with fire and brimstone. " The fearful and un- 
believing, and the abominable, and murderers, 
and whoremongers, sorcerers, and idolaters, and 
all liars, shall have their part in the lake that 
burnetii with fire and brimstone, which is the 
second death." (Rev. ii, 8.) The apostles met 
and condemned these gigantic and prevailing 
social sins ; they called them by their proper 
names, and pronounced the punishment due to 
those who practiced them without fear of a clHl 
'war ; but, when they came to "the social evil 
of slavery," as Dr. Wayland calls it, lo, and be- 
hold ! they did not proclaim the unlawfulness of 
slavery, for it would instantly have arraigned 
master and slave ao-ainst each other in deadly 



1 72 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

hostility ; the announcement of such a precept 
would have been the signed of servile war! 
The slaves of that day must have been terrible 
fellows! Why, they might easily have scared 
their masters so badly that they would instantly 
have set them free, when inspired apostles were 
afraid to say that slaveholders, like other great 
sinners, were unfit for Heaven, lest the slaves 
would rise and sweep the very name of the 
Christian reliction from the world with the 
streams of universal bloodshed ! That there 
was real danger of war and opposition to the 
apostles' preaching against idolatry, no one can 
doubt who will read the history of the Christian 
church for the first three centuries of the Chris- 
tian era. There are no less than ten persecu- 
tions mentioned by ecclesiastical historians as 
having taken place within this period. These 
persecutions were raised and carried on by idol- 
aters for the purpose of exterminating Chris- 
tians. For the Romans, though they tolerated 
all the religions from which the commonwealth 
had nothing to fear, yet would not suffer the 
ancient religion of their nation, as established 
by their laAvs, to be derided, and the people to 
be withdrawn from it ; yet both of these the 
Christians dared to do. Nor did thev assail 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 173 

the Roman religion only, but likewise the reli- 
gions of all other nations. Hence the Romans 
concluded that the Christian sect was not only 
arrogant beyond all measure, but likewise un- 
friendly to the public peace and tranquility, and 
calculated to excite civil wars. Tacitus, a Ro- 
man historian, charges Christians with being 
"haters of the human race," and Suetonius 
calls them "malignant," because such as could 
not endure the sacred rites and religion of the 
Romans, nor those of all the world, seemed to 
be the foes of mankind and to indulo-e hatred 
towards all nations. "Another cause of the 
Roman hostility to Christianity," says Mosheim, 
(Eccles. Hist., book 1, cent. 1, pt. 1, chap, v,) 
"was that the worship of so many pagan deities 
afforded support to a countless throng of priests, 
augurers, soothsayers, merchants and artists, 
all of whom were in danger of coming to want 
if Christianity should prevail ; and, therefore, 
with united strength, they rose up against it, 
and wished to exterminate its followers." This 
attempt to put down the social sin of idolatry 
was not effected without the loss of many lives. 
The triumph of Christianity over idolatry cost 
the life of many a Christian. "That a great 
many persons, of both sexes, and of every class 



174 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

and rank, suftered death for the cause of Christ 
during the first three or four centuries, no im- 
partial person who is acquainted with the history 
of these times can hesitate to believe." (Mos- 
heim.) That all those engaged in the j^ractice 
of idolatry were opposed to the spread of 
Christianity, no person can for a moment seri- 
ously doubt ; and, that the historian gives the 
true reasons why there was so much opposition 
to it, appears and is confirmed by the inspired 
historian Luke. (Acts xviii, 23-41.) There 
we are informed that a man " named Demetrius, 
a silver-smith, which made shrines for Diana," 
excited a mob against Gains and Aristarchus, 
and would have destroyed them if the ofiicers 
had not appeased tliem by telling them "that 
the great city of the Ephesians was a worship- 
per of the goddess Diana;" that this worship 
was protected by law ; therefore, they ought to 
be quiet and do things in a lawful manner. 
There was then more danger in expressly pro- 
hibiting idolatry than slavery, for all ages, ranks 
and conditions of men, high and low, master 
and slave, were idolators. But, in the face of 
all this opposition they preached, testified 
against its practice, and openly proclaimed that 
no habitual idolater could ent.^r into the king- 
dom of Heaven. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 1 75 

If, then, Christ intended to prohibit slavery, 
He and his apostles took a very ditferent man- 
ner to condemn this " social sin " to that pur- 
sued towards other social sins. They forbid 
them by name, and openly testified against 
them, and there is no dispute among' the fol- 
lowers of Christ about the sinfulness of idolatry, 
drunkenness, lying, stealing, adultery, lewdness, 
oovetousness, and many similar sins, because 
these things are expressly forbidden; but, there 
seems to be an unending controversy among 
Christians whether slavery is sinful or not. 
Now, this subject of slavery did not escape the 
notice of the apostles. It w^as not because they 
were afraid to speak out against it, that they 
did not expressly and pointedly condemn the 
relationship of master and slave, for we have 
shown that they had everything to fear in con- 
demning idolatry; still they condemned it, 
although the testimony for the truth cost many 
of them their lives. They could not have over- 
looked the matter because it did not exist in a 
very bad form, for it is the testimony of all that 
it did exist in its ^vorst forms. 

The following features of slavery among the 
Komans, at the time of Christ, is taken from 
Dr. Wayland's Letters on Slavery, pages 86 



176 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

and 87. The author of the "Letters" tells us 
in a note that they are taken from an article in 
the "Biblical Repository" for October, 1835, 
written by the Rev. Professor Edwards, of the 
Theological Seminary, Andover: 

1. " Slavery was universal throughout the 
empire, and the number of slaves almost ex- 
ceeds belief. Some rich individuals possessed 
10,000, and others even 20,000 of their fellow 
creatures. In Italy, it is computed, that there 
were three slaves to ©ne freeman, and that their 
number in this part of the empire alone was, at 
that time, more than twenty millions. 

2. "Persons became slaves by being made 
captives in wcn\ hy purchase from slave dealers, 
by hirtli^ by the operation of law — as, for 
instance, in consequence of debt, or as a punish- 
ment for crime. Ca?sar is said to have taken 
400,000 captives in his Gallic wars alone. In 
Delos alone 10,000 slaves were sometimes bought 
and sold in a single day. 

3. "On the condition of slaves it may be re- 
marked l\ml^ firstly — the master had the power 
of life and death over the slave. Secondly — 
slaves were not permitted to marry. Thirdly — 
they were permitted to hold no property as 
their own ; whatever they acquired being the 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 177 

property of tlieir masters. Fourthly — they 
were exposed to the most unrelenting b.arbarity, 
being perfectly unprotected by law, and left 
entirely in the power of their owners. They 
were liable to every kind of torture, and cruel 
masters sometimes kept on their estates tor- 
mentors by profession, for the purpose of pun- 
ishing their slaves. Burning alive was some- 
times resorted to, and crucifixion was frequently 
made the late of a slave for trifling misconduct, 
or from mere caprice. In fine, a slave was con- 
sidered in no other light than as a representative 
of so much value ; hence, it is not wonderful 
that they should be slain in order to make food 
for fishes, or that the question should arise, 
whether, in a storm, a man should sacrifice a 
valuable horse, or a less valuable slave." 

We add one or two other particulars from 
Prof Anthon's Manual of Roman Antiquities, 
page 150 : 

"A slave could not contract a marriage. His 
cohabitation with a w^oman was called ' a living 
together ' — not a marriage ; and no legal rela- 
tion between him and his children was recog- 
nized." "Slaves were not esteemed as persons, 
but as things, and might be transferred from one 
owner to another like any other efl!*ects. Slaves 



178 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

could not appear as witnesses in a court of jus- 
tice, nor make a will, nor inherit anything unless 
accompanied by a bequest of freedom." 

We liave given these facts, and have taken 
them from those who are no friends of slavery, 
to show that the reason why the inspired apos- 
tles did not prohibit slavery could not have 
arisen from ignorance of the system. The 
greater the abuses of the system, the more 
inexplicable their course towards it — on the 
ground that it was that monster social evil it is 
represented to be by Dr. Wayland and all anti- 
slavery writers. The truth is, we can not see 
how, on their principles, with the facts of the 
case before them, the conduct of Christ and his 
apostles can be at all justified; they must be 
chargeable with inexcusable neglect of a very 
important duty. This is the light in which the 
matter appears to us, taking the anti-slavery 
view of the subject. AVe therefore reject and 
repudiate the whole abolition view, and seek the 
explanation of their conduct in another and 
simpler reason. The true reason why the in- 
spired apostles did not prohibit slavery by an 
express precept was that tJiey had no authorlti/ 
from the Holy Spirit to do so. They expressly 
condemned the social evils of idolatry, fornica- 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 179 

tion, drunkenness, lying-, theft, adultery and the 
kindred vices, because they were authorized by 
the Spirit of inspiration to do so ; they said 
what they were authorized to say on the sub- 
ject of slavery — that is, they were authorized to 
prescribe the mutual duties arising out of the 
relation of master and slave : they liave done 
this, and they stop])ed at the point where their 
authority stopped. The Gospel was not re- 
vealed to destroy the lawful relations of life, but 
to remove the abuses introduced into those re- 
lations by sin. The Gospel was intended to 
make men better : to make better rulers and 
citizens ; better husbands and wives ; better 
parents and children, and better masters and 
servants. Where it fails to do these things, the 
fault lies not in the Gospel, but in tliose who 
preach it, and in those who profess to receive it. 
This view of the whole matter must commend 
itself to the sound and calm judgment of every 
one who will carefully examine into the subject. 
The question returns, Why did not Christ or 
his inspired apostles expressly prohibit this 
" social evil," as it is termed by Dr. Wayland ? 
We have given what appears to us to be the 
true reason of this course of procedure on the 
i:)art of inspired men. God had subjected, by 



180 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLATERY. 

an express sentence, the descendants of Ham to 
those of Shem and Japheth, and this was given 
to the human fimily before the Jewish economy 
came into existence. That economy expressly 
recognized tlie system of subjection, or servi- 
tude. Christ came: He found the thing still 
practiced; it had been authorized by the divine 
law-giver — by Moses — and, hence, if the thing- 
was wrong — sinful in itself—it was necessary 
that He should say so, or direct his apostles to 
condemn it as unlaw^ful. That He has not done 
so is conceded by the opposers of slavery. 
The case is rather a hard one for anti-slavery 
men who regard the Scriptures as the word of 
God — the rule of faith and practice. Slavery 
must be condemned in some way ; if it is not 
expressly prohibited, then some other method 
of interpretation must be adopted to DW.Txe the 
Xew Testament condemn it. Hence, Dr. Way- 
land (Moral Science, p. 215) attempts to make 
a distinction as to the ground of obligation. 
He teaches that the obligation of the child to 
obey his parent rests on a different ground from 
that on which the servant is required to obey 
his master; and, although he informs us in a 
foot note to page 216 that he has been led seri- 
ously to doubt " whether this distinction is 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 181 

sustained by the New Testament," still the ob- 
jectionable doctrine is left in the body of the 
work to do all the mischief it can possibly do to 
the prejudice of slavery. We will, therefore, 
notice it briefly, and attemj)t to show that it is 
a distinction witliout a difference., gotten up to 
serve a particular |)urpose. 

"It is," says he, "important to remember 
that two grounds of moral obligation are dis- 
tinctly recognized in the Gospel : the first is^ 
our duty to man as man — that is, on the ground 
of the relation which men sustain to each other; 
the second is, our duty to man as a creature — 
that is, on the ground of the relation which we 
all sustain to God. On this latter ground " — 
that is, on the ground of tfie relation which we 
all sustain to God — " many things become our 
duty which would not be so on the former" — 
that is, on the ground of the relation which 
men sustain to each other. This, then, is the 
distinction ; let us see how it is carried out and 
applied to the duties of children and servants. 
" It is on this ground" — viz : the relation M'hich 
we sustain to God — "that w^e are commanded 
to return good for evil ; to pray for them that 
despitefully use us, and, wd)en we are smitten 
on one cheek, to turn also the other. To act 
p 



182 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

thus is our duty — not because our fellow-raan 
has a right to claim this course of conduct of 
us, nor because lie has a right to inflict injury 
upon us, but because such conduct in us will be 
well pleasing to God. And when God ipre- 
scribes the course of conduct which will be well 
pleasing to Him, He by no means acknowledges 
the right of abuse in the injurious person, but 
expressly declares, 'vengeance is mine, and I 
iclllrejKiy i% sa'ith the Lord: Now, it is to be 
observed, that it is precisely upon this latter 
ground " — that is, .that God requires it, or that 
it is w^ell pleasing in his sight — " that the slave 
is commanded to obey his master." This does 
not touch the point in question, for it must be 
shoivn first that the relation is sinful in itself 
before this can be legitimately applied to the 
subject, yet Dr. Wayland is attempting to show' 
by this argument that slavery is sinful. This is 
begging the question. If he had first proven 
that slavery is a sin, then the application of his 
principle to the subject w^ould have been clear. 
But, as the matter is, whatever it may prove in 
regard to returning good for evil, it has no 
bearing on a principle, or the point at issue be- 
tween him and the slaveholder. He must first 
prove that the slave is returning good for evil in 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 183 

obeying the lawful commands of his mastei', be- 
fore the argument has any bearing on the point 
at issue. He migiit say with equal truth and 
fairness that the child is returnino: ^ood for evil 
when he obeys the lawful reciuirements of his 
parents, for they rest prechely on the same 
ground, although this is the leading object Dr. 
Wayland had in view in making the distinction. 
" It " — the obedience to masters — " is never 
urged like tlie duty of obedience to parents, he- 
cause it is not ri(jJity Well, let us see how the 
matter stands in the Scriptures. Children are 
commanded to obey their parents in the Lord ; 
the reason given is, "/b/' tJds is right.'''' (Eph. 
vi, 1 .) Why is it right for children to obey their 
parents'? Does the obligation arise from the 
relation in which the parties stand to each 
other? Dr. Wayland w^ould answer this last 
question in the affirmative. Or, does the obli- 
gation arise from the fact that God had said, in 
the fifth commandment, " Honor thy father and 
thy mother ? " Is not this the true reason why 
obedience to parents is right ? The relation in 
the first place must be right itself, before it can 
be right to obey. The relation of parent and 
child is recognized as lawful — that is, in accord- 
ance with the will of God — and, hence, obedi- 
ence is rioht. 



184 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

The obedience of the slave to his master is 
urged " because the cultivation of meekness 
and forbearance under injury will be well pleas- 
ing to God." A more complete begging of the 
question never has been exemplitied. Dr. Way- 
land is trying to account for the fact that the 
writersof the Xew Testament did not expressly 
condemn slavery, for fear of a servile war; and 
that the system is Avrong any way ; and he tries 
to prove that it is wrong by assuining that it is 
wrong ; therefore^ it is icromj. But, let us 
proceed with his distinctions, and see how the 
Scriptures will settle the point. Thus, servants 
are commanded to be obedient to their own 
masters " in singleness of heart, as unto Christ^'''' 
doing the irill <>f God from the heart.'*' 
Now, in the name of all that is sacred, we ask 
on what liigher authority can the obligation to 
obedience rest than on the ti'ill of God / This 
is the very foundation on which all obligation 
rests ; it is the best — it is sure always to be 
right ; yet, servants are commanded to obey 
their masters, not from the consideration that 
the eye of their master is upon them, " not with 
eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as the servants 
of Christ, doing the icill of God from the 
heart — from the proper motive — from the fact 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 185 

that God requires it. We will not pursue this 
point any further, as it must be plain to every 
man that there is a distinction made in the two 
things by Dr. Wayland without any real 
diiierence. 

Now, if the point at issue between us were 
the mere question of expedlemyij as to whether 
it would be better for slavery to exist or be 
abolished — if the matter Avere one of indiffer- 
ence as to the holding or not holding slaves, 
then we might bring in various considerations 
for or against slavery. Paul says, " all things 
are lawful for me, but all things are not expedi- 
ent." (1st Cor. vi, 12.) We are not to abuse 
our Christian liberty to the offence of our 
brethren. (1st Cor. viii, 4-11.) Still, so far as 
the thing is in itself law'ful, it is a matter of in- 
difference whether we indulge, or abstain ; " for, 
neither if we- eat are we the better, neither if 
we eat not are w^e the worse.'' We are not 
bound to abstain from a course, or from doing 
anything which is a matter of indifference, un- 
less our indulgence would become a stumbling 
block in the way of a weak brother. (Verse 
9.) Hence the apostle adduces or draws this 
genoral principle in regard to our conduct about 
abstaining from or indulging in things Indijftr- 



186 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

ent in tJiernselces : " Wherefore, it' meat make 
my brother to offend, I will eat no tlesh while 
the world standeth, lest I make my brother to 
offend." (See verse 13.) " All things are law- 
ful for me, but all things edify not." (1st Cor. 
X, 23.) This is the Scriptural rule about things 
that are indifferent in themselves. Jf Dr. 
Wayland and his anti-slavery friends would take 
the ground that slavery is lawful, but not expe- 
dient — is lawful, but is not for edification, then, 
probably, there would be some reason or sense 
in their opposition to slavery ; but they take 
the "higher" ground that it is ''a moral evil," 
that it " is a sin [per se) in itself] and this is 
the issue they have made, and we must meet it. 
Then, all side issues about expediency, national 
wealth, its effects on the morals of both parties, 
do not touch the point at issue. 

Is slavery sinful in itself? this is the ques- 
tion. We answer no ; it is not sinful, for God 
in his Word, requires servants to obey their 
masters, thereby recognizing the relation as 
lawful and right. Let us take an illustration 
from Scriptural facts, to show the absurdity of 
this two-ground doctrine. From the relation 
of husband and wife it would appear that they 
were and should be on terms of perfect equality 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 187 

as to tlie riolit to rule, and such appears to have 
been tlie case in a state of innocence; but sin 
entered and destroyed this equality, and the 
Creator, in consequence of tlie woman beino- 
lirst in the transgression, has subjected her to 
the will of her liusband. "Thy desire shall be 
to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." 
(Gen. iii, IG.) On what ground, it may be 
asked, "is the woman commanded"" to be in 
subjection to her own husbands "Wives, sub- 
mit yourselves to your own husbands." Surely 
this obligation to obedience does not arise from 
the relation Avhich the parties sustain to each 
other, but obedience is right because God re- 
quires it. We may apply this in all its force to 
the relation of master and slave. The ground 
of obligation does not merely rest on the rela- 
tion of the parties, but on the expressed will of 
God. This makes obedience in both cases rioht, 
and disobedience Avrong. God has subjected 
the race of Ham to those of Shem and Japheth, 
as a punishment of the sin of their progenitor. 
He has not repealed this decision, or reversed 
the sentence, but has commanded servants to 
obey their masters — doing the will of God. 
These illustrations show clearly the absurdity of 
Dr. Wayland's attempted distinction of two 



188 THE NEW TESTAMENr ON SLAVERY. 

grounds of obligation in the Gospel. Such dis- 
tinction is not authorized by the Scriptures. 
The Gospel was not given to teach rebellion 
against lawful authority, nor to break up the 
lawful relations of life, but to teach each one 
his proper duty in the place God has assigned 
him, and the foundation or reason of his duty. 
To attempt to change the ground of obligation, 
is to attempt to make that " straight which God 
hath made crooked" — to teacJt^ rather than 
ohey^ our Creator. 

We are now j^repared to answer a question 
which Dr. Wayland propounds to the slave- 
holder, and which he evidently considers a 
settler of the whole question. (Moral Science, 
p. 212.) "Would the master be willing that 
another person should subject him to slavery 
for the same reasons and on the same grounds 
that he holds his slave in bondage? " We an- 
swer, einp/iatically^ no. And why not ? We 
reply, God never has given the descendants of 
Shem or Japheth the right to enslave each 
other ; or, in other words, God has never sub- 
ordinated these races to each other as servants. 
They have no authority to enslave each other, 
but God has given them the right, or subjected 
the descendants of Ham to them separately and 
distinctly. (Gen. ix, 25-27.) 



THE NEW TESTAMENT OX SLAVERY. 180 

Again, on the same page, he asks, '' Wonld 
the Gospel allow us, if it were in our i)ower, to 
seduce our fellow-citizens of our own color to 
slavery ? ■ ' We again, emphatically, answer, 
that, according to your own conception, the 
Gospel has not, by express precept, forbidden 
slavery ; and, hence, it has not changed the sen- 
tence of God against Ham's posterity, neither 
has it conferred the right on the posterity of 
Shem or Japheth to enslave each other, and the 
question is out of place. AVe have no authority 
to enslave our fellow-citizens of our own color; 
we have, however, the right to hold the pos- 
terity of Ham in bondage. The assertion that 
"the Gospel makes no distinction between men 
on the ground of color, or race," is a very silly 
thing, for this distinction was made immediately 
iifter the flood and long before the Gospel dis- 
pensation commenced. The Gos^jel found the 
distinction already made. You admit that it 
did not condemn this distinction by an express 
precept. And we enquire, for what purpose 
did you ask the question '/ The passage from 
Acts xvii, 20, that is quoted to sustain the posi- 
tion that " the Gospel makes no distinction 
between men on the ground of color, or race," 
has no application to the point. That passage 



190 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

simply proves that all men of nil nations are 
descended from the same original stock, or what 
is usually called "the unity of the race." This 
we have admitted, and are prepared to sustain. 
But the unity and equaUty of races is a distinc- 
tion with a difference^ and that difference has 
been made by the Creator himself. From a 
w^ant of observing this very simple and plain 
distinction, thousands of honest men have been 
led into a radical error on the subject of human 
rights and personal liberty. The minify of the 
race would prove its equality also, provided 
there had been nothing to disturb this equality. 
vSin has disturbed this equality^ while it has not 
interfered with its unity. We need do nothing- 
more than call the reader's attention to the fact 
that the Creator has subjected the woman to 
the will of her husband, and the posterity of 
Ham to that of Shem and Japheth, and both as 
a punishment for sin. But, it will be said, in 
reply to this, if this be the true teaching of the 
Bible, its jjrincii^les are not as liberal as many 
human productions. " The Gospel of Christ," it 
will be said, "on the subject of human rights, 
falls infinitely below the Declaration of Ameri- 
'Can Independence." 



THE NKW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 191 

Let us look into the matter a little further. 
We make a remark on the introductory sen- 
tence of the Declaration of Independence : 
" We hold these truths to be self-evident : that 
all men are created equal." Those who framed 
and adopted tliat instrument did not mean that 
all men, without distinction^ or exception., arc 
created equal. They simply meant that the 
])eople of the American Colonies were equal 
with their English ancestors; that they had the 
right to political freedom, or independence, 
equally witli the mother country — that govern- 
ment having failed to accomplish the end for 
which it w^as set up, they had the right to 
change it and adopt such a one as would best 
suit their interests — personal and social. In 
this sense it contained an important }>olitical 
truth ; is not contrary to the teachings of the 
Bible, and is in accordance with the facts of the 
case. The framers of that instrument did not 
mean that their slaves were their political equals, 
or that they had the same rights to personal 
liberty with their masters. If such had been 
the meaning and construction of that memora- 
ble sentence, this great Confederacy of inde- 
pendent States would never have been formed. 
If W'C have not given the true meaning and 



192 THE NEW tp:stament on slavery. 

intent of that sentence, then it does not contain 
" self-evident truths," fur we have shown that 
the Creator has taken away certain inalienable 
rights from one portion of the human family, 
and given them to the other two divisions of 
the race. Among these rights which the Crea- 
tor has taken away, is that of personal liberty 
from the posterity of Ham. It is not, however, 
with human productions we have now to deal : 
it is with the Bible. The "voice of the multi- 
tude is not always the voice of God," is a maxim 
of some importance in the investigation of hu- 
man rights and personal freedom. That men 
sometimes think they are wiser than God, has 
been exemplified in the past history of the race. 
The French, for instance, thought that their 
Creator was mistaken when he appointed one^ 
seventh of the time as a day of rest from labor 
and to be spent in his service. They repudiated 
the very existence of a God, set up a young 
woman, and worshipped her as the Goddess of 
Reason ; and, to obliterate every mark and ves- 
tige of the Christian religion, they abolished 
the seventh day, and appointed the tenth as the 
proper part of time for cessation from labor. 
What was the result of this mad attempt to 
teach their Creator and correct his work ? The 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 193 

wildest confusion prevailed. Their goddess ac- 
cidentally fell and broke her neck. Man and 
beast broke down under the ten day system, 
and had to return to the time appointed by the 
Creator. And we hope that the fanaticism of 
abolitionism will be destroyed by its own cor- 
ruptions, and men will be brought to their sober 
thoughts again, to abide by Avhat God has said 
and taught in the Scriptures on the subject of 
personal servitude. Dr. Wayland admits that 
there is no direct ])recept in the Xew Testa- 
ment forbidding or prohibiting slavery. Paul 
says that " Where there is no law there is no 
transgression," (Rom. iv, 15,) and tliat "Sin is 
not imputed where there is no law." (Rom. v, 
18.) With these things before us, then, who 
dare say tliat the slaveholder is a great sinner, 
that slavery is a "moral evil," a "sin in itself," 
and attempt to exclude liim from Heaven when 
Christ lias not done so ? We ask, who ? and 
echo answers, who ? 

Dr. Wayland seems determined on makino- 
slavery a sin, and the slaveholder a great sinner, 
unless he hold tlie slave, " not o?i the (ivomxd of 
I'lght over him^ but of obligation to him., for 
the 2yu'>'pose of accomplishing a jxirticular and 
specified good.'''' He comes to this conclusion 
(I 



194 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

from many considerations, which appear to him 
to be unanswerable. Among tlie reasons \vhich 
lead him to this conclusion, is this, viz : " God 
has imposed upon men certain obligations which 
are inconsistent with the existence of domestic 
slavery." That God has imposed certain obli- 
gations upon men, and that these obligations 
are inconsistent with the existence of domestic 
slavery, he thinks may be easily show^n. Here 
they are. We will state and answer them one 
by one, in the order as laid down by him. 
(Moral Science, p. 213.) Among these things, 
the Dr. thinks, that "the universal proclamation 
of the Gospel to all men, without respect to 
circumstance or condition," is very prominent. 
Let him speak for himself "He," that is, God^ 
"has made it our duty to proclaim the Gospel 
to all men, without respect to circumstances or 
condition. If it be our duty to prodalm the 
Gospel to every creature, it must be our duty 
to give every creature every means for attaining 
a knowledge of it — and yet, more imperatively, 
not to place any obstacles in the w^ay of at- 
tainino; that knowledc^e." Dr. Wavland means 
by the expression, " It must be our duty to give 
to every creature every means for attaining a 
knowledge of his duty," that slaveholders- 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVEUV. 195 

sliould learn their slaves to read, and that 
slavery is wrong because it interferes with the 
slaves studying reading, writing, geograpliy, 
and other kindred branches ; in other words, if 
the slave were taught his duty to God and to 
his master, according to modern notions of edu- 
cation, slavery could not exist for a day. This 
is the true meaning from the latter clause of the 
extract, " yet more imperatively, not to place 
any obstacles in the way of their attaininp" that 
knowledge."" The idea that is prominent in this 
extract is, that slavery interferes with the 
slave's understanding the Gospel, because this 
knowledge would necessarily bring more, which 
would destroy tlie master's control over the 
slave altogether ; for, "inasmuch as the accpiisi- 
tion of the knowledge of his (the slave's) duty 
to God could not be freely made without the 
acquisition of other knowledge, which might, if 
universally diU'used, endanger the control of the 
master. Slavery supposes the master to have 
the right to determine how much knowledge of 
his duty a slave shall obtain, the manner in 
which he shall obtain it, and the manner in 
which he shall discharge that duty after lie shall 
have obtained a knowledge of it. It thus sub- 
jects the duty of man to (4od entirely to the 



196 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

will of man, and this for the sake of pecuniary 
profit. It renders the eternal happiness of the 
one party subservient to the temporal happiness 
of the otlier. And tliis })rineiple is commonly 
recognized by the laws of all slave-holding 
countries." (Moral Science, i)age 207.) The 
whole gist of this position is contained in two 
points, viz: That the slave's actpiisition of his 
knowledge of his Maker's will would necessarily 
lead to the knowledge that his master is doing 
him wrong in holding him in bondage. He 
might and would learn from abolitionists this 
idea, but not from the Bible, for that good book 
teaches servants to be content with their lot — 
not conclude, because they have be( ome Chris- 
tians, therefore, they ought to disobey their 
masters. To think that tlie Gospel is a declara- 
tion of tlie universal abolition of subjection to 
superiors, is tlie doctrine of ^x/vtr^er.y, not of 
Interpretti'^^ of God's Word. *■' Let every man 
abide in the same calling wherein he was called. 
Art thou called, being a servant, care not for it: 
but, if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." 
(1st Cor; vii, 20, 21.) This passage shows this 
important point, namely : that clr'd servitude is 
not inconsistent with Christian liberty. They 
mav be the Lord's fret ratn who ai'e slaves to 



THE NEW Tf:t?TAMENT OX SLAVEltV. 197 

men. Thougli he be discharged from the vas 
salage of sin, lie is not theretore discharged 
from his master's service. The doctrine of 
Paul; then, cuts up by the I'oots Dr. Wayland's 
bold notion that a knowledge of God's will 
would lead to other knowledge that would en- 
danger the control of the master over the slave. 
This is a palpable contradiction of the whole 
teaching and tenor of the Scri])tr.res. It is not 
only contrary to the spirit, but to the hfter of 
the Gospel. Dr. Wayland rirtiialhj contradicts 
and overthrows his own position on tliis j^oint. 
when he says, in another place, (Moral Science, 
p. 212,) "The Gospel nctthcr rontnifindi^ mas- 
ters to manumit their slaves, nor autJiorizti< 
slaves to free themselves from their masters: 
and, also, it goes further mmX pre.«:'r'ih<s the du- 
ties suited to both parties in their present con- 
dition." We are now speaking of the slave's 
acquiring a knowledge of his Maker's w ill, not 
treating the matter in the way of a liberal edu- 
cation in art and science. A man may acquire 
a very extensive and accurate knowledge of the 
former, and at the same time not know whether 
the world on which we li\ e is round or square, 
whether it stands still or turns round on its axis 
everv twentv-four hours. Hence, in the sccdiid 



108' THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

place, Dr. Wavland evidently assi(/jit« that a 
man must read, write and do many other things 
before lie can know anything about whether he 
is a sinner or not, whether there is a Heaven or 
a hell, wiiether there is a Saviour or not, and 
whether it is right to obey God in preference to 
fanatical ao-itators. 

If, then,' it can be >liown bv tacts that men 
are 'capable of knowing their Maker's will — that 
they- ban acquire an extensive and accurate 
knowdedge of the Scri[)tures — become devout 
and consistent Christians witliout being even 
able to read, the objection to slavery tails to the 
gromid. It is, or should be known, by every 
person, whether they can read or not, that the 
art of printing was nut invented till within a 
f(i\Y hundred years past : that before that time 
books were very scarce — only a few could pos- 
!^ess them — from the great expense attending 
their manufacture — being literally made with the 
hmid ; for they had to be not only written at 
first with the pen, but every subserjuent copy 
liad to be prejtared in the same way. From 
this fact, and that the books were not written 
like ours on paper, but on parchment or prepared 
skins of sheep, the books would necessarily be 
so expensive that none but a few coidd |)0ssess 



THE NEAV TESTAMENT OX .^LAVEKV. 1*1*1 

lliL'iii. There is another lUet to be remembered, 
growing, as a consequenee, out of that ah-eady 
stated; it is this: very few persons, compara- 
tively speaking, could read ; tlie great mass of 
the people had to dejtcnd on oral instruction 
for their information about every important 
subject. This was true of tlie Greeks and Ro- 
mans, two of the most civilized and intelligent 
nations of antiquit\'. They learned the poetry 
of their Homers, their llesiods and Anacreons; 
the history of their Xenophons, Herodituses 
and Polybiuses : the logic of their Aristotles, 
and the oratory of their Demostheneses, their 
Ciceros, and other great men, not from rcadbuj. 
but from hearing these things read in their pub- 
lic assemblies. It will not be denied that the 
Jews knew as much about the character of God. 
the nature of his service, the spirituality of his 
essence, as many common peojile in this age 
who frequently boast about their learning. The 
Jews knew more of their Maker's will than 
many who can read and per\ ert it to suit their 
selfish and wicked ends ; still, the Jews, as a 
mass, wert* unable to read. They obtained 
their knowledge from the law and the pro^^hets 
Jiclnii read Xo them every Sabbath day in their 
synagogues. (x\cts xv, 21.) This is a sufficient 



200 THE NEW TESTAMENT OS SLAVERY, 

refutation of the abolition objection against 
slavery. Whether this oral instruction is given 
to the slaves, wiil be considered in its proper 
place. Still, if masters sutt'er their servants to 
grow up in ignorance of the Gos)>el, it no more 
proves that the relation is sinful in itself, than 
that of parent and child is sinful because many 
parents suffer their children to grow up without 
moral and religious instruction. All that in 
either case can be fairly said is, that the parties 
have mglected to discharge the duties God has 
•imposed upon them. If we were arguing the 
•t.fipediencji or inexpediency of slavery, then this 
matter might be urged as an argument why we 
should abandon slavery, l^ut it does not in the 
present case touch the point at issue. 

Another argument which Dr. AVayland urges 
to prove that slavery is a moral or social sin, is 
derived from the fact that it often violates the 
-conjugal or marriage relation — it often is the 
•cause of the separation (jf man and woman, or, 
to speak more correctly, it frecpiently separates 
liusband and wife. God "has taught us," says 
T)r. Wayland. (Moral Science, page 213,) ''that 
the <'Onji((/al relation is established by himself; 
that husband and wife are joined together by 
God, and that man may not put them asunder. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. lJ(ll 

TIr' iiiairiage contract is a contract tbi- lite, and 
is indissoluble only for one cause." (He ought 
to have said for tii:o — not only conjugal infidel- 
ity, but for li'illfid desertion.) "Any system,'' 
continues he, " that interferes with this contract, 
and claims to niak(> it anything else than what 
God has made it, is a violation of His law. Yet. 
strange to say, God has not, by any express pre- 
cept, forbidden this system of monster wicked- 
ness — Dr. Wavland himself beinij: iudii'el God 
has not forbidden slavery because " its announce- 
ment would ha\e betn the signal of a servile 
war!" The more w-e investigate the subject of 
slavery in the anti-slavery view of it, the con- 
duct of Christ and his apostles becomes more 
and more shadowed in mystery, instead of be- 
coming clearer as we advance. Darkness — 
Egyptian darkness — covers our pathway I 

The proper <piestion, then, for examination is, 
Do the Scriptures treat the marriage of slaves 
in the same light as they do that of free men */ 
If we show that they do not, then, that slavery 
is contrary to the law of God, is without foun- 
dation. The marriage of a bond-man among 
the Jews was treated differently from that of a 
free man. The Hebrew servant that served six 
vears and was entitled to his freedom, could 



202 THE NEW TESTAMtNT OX SLAVERY. 

enjoy that freedom, if he were a married man, 
on condition that he left his wife and children. 
"If his master have given him a wife, and she 
have borne him sons or daughters, the wife and 
children shall be her master's, ar.d he shall go 
out by himself" (Ex. xxi, 4.) The only con- 
dition on which the servant could remain with 
his wife and children was that he became a 
slave for life. " And if the servant shall plainly 
say, I love my master, my wife, and my chil- 
dren, I will not go out free, then his master shall 
bring him imto the judges ; he shall also bring 
him to the door, or unto the door-post, and his 
master shall bore his ear through with an awl, 
and he shall serve him for ever." (Ex. xxi, 5, 
6.) Now, taking this law in connection with 
the fact that God has not forbidden by an ex- 
press precept the system of shwer}', we may 
form a Aery correct and equitable judgment on 
a point that frequently puzzles Christian mas- 
ters on the subject of separating husband and 
Avife in case of a removal, or the death of the 
head of a family. To illustrate the subject and 
show clearly our view^ of the matter, suppose, 
for instance, that a man is about to remove to a 
new country ; he Avishes to take his servants 
Avith him, but some of the male servants haA'e 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 203 

wives belonging to other men, and, jn'obably, 
some of the female servants have husbands be- 
longing to another man. The question with 
the Christian master is, how shall he manage 
the matter so as not to interfere with the mar- 
riage relation of his servants. The case to us 
seems plain, from the law just quoted from Ex- 
odus. The equitable plan is simply to give the 
slave his choice — if he prefer to go with his 
master and leave his wife and children, the 
matter is at an end ; if he prefer to stay with 
his wife and children, it is then the duty of his 
master either to buy his wufe and the children 
under age, or sell him to the man who owns his 
wife — so in the case of the female servants. 
This is the rule, and it is a just one, resting as 
it does on the Scriptural principle laid down by 
Moses, and adopted by most of Christian mas- 
ters so far as our knowledge extends. The laws 
of some slave-holding States require that in 
case of the death of the master without a will, 
the slaves shall be sold m families. We know 
this to be true, and we have every reason to 
believe that it will ultimately be the case in all 
of the slave-holding States. 

The objection of Dr. Wayland against slavery, 
arising from the supposed interference with the 



204 THE NEW TKSTAMENT ON" t^LAVERY. 

parental relations, will be answered more fully 
when \ve come to point out the Scriptural du- 
ties of masters and slav^es. To answ^er it here 
would be to anticipate that branch of our sub- 
ject too far. We therefore pass by it w^ith the 
single remark that God has constituted the 
master the legal lather and guardian of the 
children of his servants. This we will show in 
its proper place. 

We have, we believe, noticed the principal 
arguments or side issues which Dr. Wayland 
makes against slavery. We will now notice 
briefly an argument brought forw^ard by many 
professedly Christian people at the North. We 
will have to state the matter from memory, as 
we have no written document at hand, though 
we would prefer this mode, as there could then 
be no ground for complaint that w'e have done 
the advocates of this opinion injustice. If, 
then, we clearly understand the matter, the ar- 
gument is derived from the meaning of the 
Greek word "c?o^^^os," which is usually trans- 
lated " servant " in our authorized version of 
the New Testament. The objector says, when 
we quote the passage, " servants be obedient to 
them that are your masters," and similar ex- 
pressions, that the word servant does not mean 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 205 

slave in the sense in which we use it, for Chris- 
tians are called in the New Testament the ser- 
vants — not the slaves of Christ. Therefore, 
servant does not mean a slave, but simply a 
hired servant. This, we believe, is a fair state- 
ment of the matter. It is not worth wliile to 
dispute about the meaning of the Greek word 
doulos. Every scholar knows that it means a 
slave. We will, however, quote one or two 
authors of acknowledged standing, as expound- 
ers of the Scriptures. Matthew Henry says in 
his note on Ephesians vi, 5, that " these ser- 
vants were generally slaves." Dr. Scott admits 
the same thing in liis note on the same verse, 
(Ephes. vi, 5-9.) " In general, the servants at 
that time were slaves, the property of their 
masters, and were often treated with great 
severity." These men had no love for slavery, 
and, hence, their testimony is the more valuable. 
The word doulos^ a " servant," or " slave," 
occurs about one hundred and twenty times in 
the New Testament, and we have seen that 
both Henry and Scott say that it means slave, 
the property of the master. But, says the ob- 
jector, this cannot be so, for the apostle Paul 
(Rom. i, 1,) calls himself a servant of Jesus 
Christ. The aj^ostle James uses the same mode 

B 



206 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

of expression. (James i, 1 .) " James, a ser- 
vant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ." 
(See also Titus i, 1 ; 2d Peter i, 1 ; Jude i.) 
It is even said of Christ (Phil, ii, 7,) that " He 
took upon himself tlie form of a servant, and 
was made in the likeness of men." These are 
a few specimens of the use of the word as used 
in the New Testament. The question now 
arises, What constitutes a man, or Christian, as a 
servant of Christ, or of God? Certainly one of 
the things is, that He be subject to the will of 
God, or Christ — to the will of another. Christ 
took upon himself the form of a servant because 
in the work of redemption He was subject to 
the will of His Father. " My meat is to do the 
will of Him that sent me, and to finish His 
work." (John iv, 34.) "Father, if Thou be 
willing, remove this cup from me ; neverthe- 
less, not my will, but thine be done." (Luke 
xxii, 42.) " Lo, I come ! in the volume of thy 
book it is written of me to do Thy will, O 
God." (Heb. x, 7.) These passages prove one 
point beyond dispute, that a servant must and 
is subject to the will of another. It may be 
objected that this obedience on the part of 
Christ was voluntary. Admitted; still this does 
not destroy the idea of subjection to the will of 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 207 

another. What, then, constitutes a Christian 
the servant of Christ V There are two ideas 
prominent in this. First, that he \)q purchased^ 
and, secondly, tliat he obey the icill of Christy 
his master. The idea ofpurchaseis very prom- 
inent in the Scriptures, and is frequently urged 
as a consideration why Christians should be 
wholly devoted to Christ's service. " Ye are 
not your own, for ye are bought with a price ; 
therefore, glorify God in your body and in your 
spirit, which are God's." (1st Cor. vi, 19, 20.) 
The price is very valuable, not being any mate- 
rial, such as silver, or gold, but His own blood. 
" Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not re- 
deemed with corruptible things, as silver and 
gold, * * * but w^ith the precious blood 
of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and 
without spot." (1st Peter i, 18.) In these 
passages the idea of a purchase stands promi- 
nent. We are tausjht that Christians do not 
belong to themselves, but arc tlie property of 
Christ. He has redeemed them, paid the price 
demanded for their release, so that His purchase 
extends to the soul as well as the body ; both 
are included. This conveys the idea of more 
complete subjection to the will of Christ on the 
part of his followers, than is even required by 



208 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

any master of his servant or slave. All that 
the master buys and claims is the time of the 
servant; he does not buy the soul, or claim to 
control the conscience of the slave. It is left 
free, and he is at liberty to worship his God as 
may best suit his own view^s. 

The other idea of a Christian being a servant 
of Christ is, that he obey hi all things the will 
of Christ, his master. Paul, at his conversion, 
enquired, "Lord, lohat wilt thou have me to 
do ?" (Acts ix, 6.) " He that is called, being- 
free, is Christ's servant." (1st Cor. vii.) We 
need not multiply passages to prove this point, 
as it is conceded bv all who acknowleds^e the 
Scriptures as the rule of faith and practice. 
" Whosoever will come after me," says Christ, 
"let him deny himself, and take up his cross 
and follow me." (Matthew^ xvi, 24.) The two 
prominent ideas of subjection are then found in 
the very Word, and on that point which is se- 
lected to disprove the doctrine for which we 
contend. The Sjriptures recognize the principle 
that the servant is the property of his master — 
" He is his money," " possession," an inheritance 
for his children" — and they inculcate ohediotCi 
on servants to their masters. But, the objector 
still answers us that the apostle says that Chris- 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 200 

tians arc the property of Christ, and fi-oin this 
consideration should not be the servants of men. 
"Ye are bought with a price: be not ye tlie 
servants of men." (1st Cor. vii, 23.) To tliis 
we reply that a man may be the servant of Christ 
in a spiritifcd sense, and the servai-it of man in a 
civil sense, without any contradiction ; in other 
words, civil servitude is not inconsistent with 
Christian liberty, "for he that is called in the 
Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's free man." 
(1st Cor. vii, 22.) The Gospel does not inter- 
fere with the relations of life, while, in a spirit- 
ual sense, there is no distinction made on 
account of the rank or civil condition of men. 
For " there is neither Jew, nor Greek ; there is 
neither bond, (slave,) nor free, (free man ;) 
there is neither male, nor female, for ye all are 
one in Jesus Christ.'' (Gal. iii, 28.) "Slaves 
are now the Lord's free men, and free men the 
Lord'wS sei-vants : and this consideration makes 
the free humble, and the slave cheerful." 
(Doddridge.) The Gospel, then, was not in- 
tended to teach disobedience to those whom 
God, by His providence, has placed over us, 
but to be cheerful, obetlient — renderinii' to all 
that reverence, honor and obedience due to 
them. He, therefore, that teaches or exhorts 



210 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON JjLAVERY. 

slaves to disobey their masters, runaway from 
their service, because he vainly asserts that the 
Gospel makes no distinction among men on ac- 
■count of race, or color ; such an one " is proud, 
knowing nothing, but doting about questions 
?ind strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, 
strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disput- 
ings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of 
the truth — supposing that gain is godliness : 
from such withdraw thyself." (1st Tim. vi, 4, 
5.) There is the portrait of an abolition agi- 
tator drawn at full length by the pen of an 
inspired apostle; and the very existence of such 
agitators is a standing proof to us, to be seen of 
all, that the holy men wrote as they were moved 
by the Holy Ghost. If there were none teach- 
in<^ disobedience to masters, abusing men who 
hold slaves, and trying every means to excite 
servile war, then our proof of the inspiration of 
Paul would be wanting. We see the man of 
sin as he describes him : we see scofi'ers denying 
the Lord that bought them ; we see abolitionists 
" doting about questions,'' which in no way 
concern them, for they have no personal or 
direct connection with slavery ; we see " envy, 
strife, or contentions, railings," the use of the 
most offensive e})ithets, " evil surmisings," sus- 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 211 

pieions and jealousies, perverse disputings of 
lueu of corrupt minds — destitute of the truth — 
men wlio neitlier know nor eare for the truth, 
so that their selfish ends are obtained — " sup- 
posing that gain is godliness'' — that tlieir selfish 
ends are the highest evidence of piety — pre- 
tending to be the only friend of the slave — very 
pious and devout — seeking his spiritual and 
temporal welfare, while some office is the sole 
and only end to be gained. "From such witli- 
<lraw thyself" We see all these things before 
our eyes, and thus have the best evidence cf 
the inspiration of the Avriters of the Xew Tes- 
tament. The last argument which we will 
notice is founded on the assertion that slave- 
holders are "men stealers," and, therefore, they 
should be turned out of God's church on earth, 
4^ind excluded from His kingdom hereafter. The 
apostles, (1st Tim. i, 10,) says the objector, 
classes the man-stealers with the "lawless and 
•disobedient," with the " ungodly and sinners," 
with the " unholy an<l profane," with " murder- 
ers of fathers and murderers of mothers," with 
" whoremongers and them that defile themselves 
with mankind," with "liars and perjured per- 
sons." These characters — especially the last — 
are declared in other ]»laces of the New Testa- 



212 THE NEW rKSTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

ment to be nnworlhy of Heaven. The slave 
holder /.s^ a man- stealer ; therefore, he is excluded 
from the kingdom of Heaven. This is a full 
and fair statement of the argument. The whole 
gist and sojjliistry of the matter consists in 
assuraing that the slaveholder is a raan-stealer. 
Let us see on what ground this assumption 
rests. Surely some abolition orator is the 
author of the assertion that slavehok^ers are 
men-stealers. The Bible does not say so. 
What I did the inspired apostle mean to say 
that " Father Abraham " was a man-stealer I 
Did the apostle Paul mean to say that " Phile- 
mon, his dearly beloved and fellow-laborer and 
brother," was a man-stealer, and yet send back 
Onesimus, his runaway slave ? Certainly Paul, 
or the anti-slavery man, is mad. Which affords 
the best evidence of sanity, or insanity, cannot 
be long a matter of dispute in the mind of 
every sober and reflecting man. The term 
needs some explanation to clear it from the per- 
versions of al)olitionists. The Bible is always 
the best expounder of itself. Then, a man- 
stealer, in the Scriptural sense of the word, is 
one who steals or kidnaps a free man^ to make 
merchandize of him — that is, steals him and 
sells him as a slave. This crime was runishable 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 213 

witli death, according to the law of God given 
by Moses. " He that stealeth a man and selleth 
him, or, if he be found in bis hand, he shall 
surely be put to death." (Ex. xxi, KJ.) That 
we have given the correct interpretation of the 
law is clear from the parallel passage in Deut. 
xxiv, 7 : "If a man be found stealing any otWiis 
bretlircn of the children of Israel., and maketh 
merchandize of him, or selleth him, then that 
thief shall die, and thou shalt put away evil 
from among you." Matthew Henry gives the 
following note on Ex. xxi, 16: "There is a law 
against man -stealing. He theit steeds a mem., 
woman, or child, with a design to sell them to 
the Gentiles, (for no Israelite would buy them) 
was adjudged to death by this statute, which 
is ratified by the apostle (1st Tim. i, 10,) where 
nien-steeders are reckoned anion o- those wicked 
ones against whom laws must be made by 
Christian princes." Such, evidently, is the true 
meaning of the law. This may be shown from 
other considerations: First — the Vfe of a ser- 
veint was not as valuable as that of a/'ree 'inein. 
To steal a free man, and sell him, w\as to deprive 
the public of one of its members. Secondly — 
it was taking away a man's liberty — the liberty 
of a free-born Israelite — w'hich was next in value 



214 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

to liis lite. Thirdly — " it was driving a man out 
from the inheritance of the land, to the privi- 
leges of which he was entitled, and bidding 
him to go and serve other gods." 

To take the abolition view of the two laws, is 
to make the first one in Exodus an independent 
statute of perpetual obligation, and the other 
merely temporary — that is, a law is either tern- 
ponu'ii or perpetual^ to suit the views of the 
man who wishes to accomplish a particular pur- 
pose. To take the ground that Dr. Scott does, 
that the law in Exodus implied that he who stole 
any one of the human species^ in order to make 
a slave of him, should be punished with death, 
is to pervert, not explain the passage. The 
emphasis in this quotation is ours. We placed 
it there for the purpose of showing the absurdity 
of the forced interpretation which Dr. Scott 
attempts to put upon it, if the law then applied 
to " any one of the human species.'''' We sim- 
ply enquire. Were the Jews of the human spte- 
cies, or not ? If they were, then there was no 
necessity or sense in giving the law of Deut. 
xxiv, 7. That the Israelites did not belong to 
the human, species, we presume no man will 
attempt to prove. The truth is, the law of 
Deut. xxiv, 7, is an e.iposition of that of Ex. 



THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 215 

XX, 16. Besides, there is a wide difference be- 
tween enacting a law to prevent the Jews from 
steaHng a Hebrew, or free man, and making 
merchandize of him, and authorizing them to 
buy bond-men and bond-maids from the lieathen 
around them and of the strangers who sojourned 
among them. It is also evident that the law of 
Exodus xxi, 16, referred to free men, because 
the bond-men and bond-maids were liable to be 
sold to the stranger, as well as to men of the 
Hebrew nation. We admit that it is wrong to 
steal a free man, and sell him for a slave. 

Many Christians seem to admit that slavery 
is not wrong under certain circumstances, but 
will not allow that the New Testament does 
countenance the idea of its perpetuity. The 
perpetuity of the system depends entirely on 
the will of the owner. This is clearly the idea 
of Paul, as he would not do anything with One- 
simus without the consent of his master, Phile- 
mon. [Philemon, verse 14.] "Whomlwould 
have retained with me, that in thy stead he 
might have ministered unto me in the bonds of 
the Gospel ; but icithout tJiy mind would I do 
nothing, that thy benefit should not be as it 
were of necessity, but willingly." "Art thou 
called, being a servant, care not for it ; but, if 



216 THE NEW TESTAMENT ON SLAVERY. 

thou tnayest he made free, use it rather." (1st 
Cor. vii, 21.] Who, then, was to make the 
slave free? Certainly, if the master, it was to 
be his own vohmtary act, for even Dr. Way- 
land says, or admits that "the Grospel neither 
commands masters to manumit their slaves, nor 
authorizes slaves to free themselves from their 
masters." 

We will now point out the mutual duties of 
masters and slaves, as laid down in the holy 
Scriptures. 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 217 



CHAPTER VTII. 

THE DUTIES OP MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

We svt out with the settled purpose to know 
and follow the teachings of the Scriptures on 
the subject of slavery, and with the determina- 
tion to follow out the sacred writers on all 
points touching the mattei-. Our work, then, 
would not be complete without pointing out 
tlie mutual duties growing out of the relation 
of masters and servants. We have seen, and 
our opponents admit, that neither Christ nor 
his inspired apostles have declared that the rela- 
tion of master is sinful in itself; that the sacred 
writers have prescribed the duties of the rela- 
tion ; and, of course, it is the duty of every one 
to know what his Creator requires of him in the 
various relations and stations of life. 

We may remark here, again, that the nerjlect 
to discharge the duty growing out of any rela- 
tion, and enjoined by God on those sustaining 
that relation, is altogether a difterent thing from 
s 



218 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

the relation itself. The relation may be lawful 
and innocent in itself, while those who sustain 
that relation may fail or neglect to perform the 
duties of that relation, enjoined by divine 
authority. The sin may and often does consist 
in the neglect of the duties, and not in the rela- 
tion itself. By observing this plain and obvious 
distinction, no one can be at a loss to see the 
sophism of Dr. Wayland's remarks, [Moral 
Science, p. 216,] that "The manner in which 
the duty of servants or slaves is inculcated, 
therefore, affords no ground for the assertion, 
that the Gospel authorizes one man to hold an- 
other in bondage, any more than the command 
to honor the king, when that king was Nero, 
authorized the tyranny of the emperor, or than 
the command to turn the other cheek when one 
is smitten, justifies the infliction of violence by 
an injurious man." This argument completely 
misses the point at issue. All that can be fairly 
deduced from it is, that Nero was a very bad 
ruler, that he did not perform his duty as a 
ruler, but tyrannized over his subjects — abused 
his power ; but this by no means proves that, 
therefore, the relation of ruler and subject is 
sinful in itself This is altogether another 
matter. On the same ground every relation in 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AM) SERVANTS. 219 

life may be proven to be sinful. All that is 
neees'sary, then, according to this view of the 
subject, to justify any one from recognizing a 
relation as lawful and right, is for one of the 
parties to neglect the duties appropriate to that 
relation. This is too clearly absurd. To pursue 
It further, would be trying to prove a thing 
which is clear as soon as stated in words which 
can be understood by the reader. And, nntil 
Dr. Wayland proves that the slave is returning 
good for evil in obeying his master's lawful 
requirements, the latter part of the paragraph 
which we have quoted is just that much gratui- 
tous assertion. That many known and lawful 
duties are neglected in all relations of life, we 
presume that no man at all conversant with men 
and things will attempt to deny. The object, 
then, should be to know our duties ; the rea- 
sons on which they are based ; attempt to per- 
form them, and not set ourselves to abuse those 
who are desirous to know and perform the du. 
ties which God requires of them ; and God has 
not required us to reject those whom He has 
accepted, nor to add to His Word, and thus 
condemn a relation which he has not con- 
demned. A great amount of abuse has been 
expended by anti-slavery men against the sin- 



220 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTf>. 

lUlucss of the relation of master and slave. 
May it not be asked with authority, "vWho 
hath required this at your hands?" God has 
not said in His Word that the relation is sinful. 
He has not authorized uninspired men to say 
so, and we would calmly and respectfully ask, 
" By wdiat authority you do these things, and 
who gave you this authoiity ? " If you reply 
that the authority is of men, we respectfully 
but Hrmly decline to obey it, or recognize it 
as binding in this case. If you say it is of God, 
produce your proof; i)rove your credentials. 
This we are satisfied you cannot do, and from 
this time forth your quarrels must be with your 
Creator, and not with us. With these prelimi- 
nary remarks, we now go on to ascertain the 
duties of masters and servants ; to know what 
God requires of both parties, and to urge on 
both masters and servants a faithful perform- 
ance of the duties God lias mutually enjoined 
on them. 

1. The Unties of blasters. — There are a few 
plain and simple duties, so r^sonable in them- 
selves, and dictated by the light of reason, that 
the Scriptures say nothing about them ; still, we 
will point them out. It is the duty, then, of the 
master to furnish his servants with comfortable 



DUTIEH OF MASTERS AND SKUVANTS. 221 

houses, decent clothing — more especially is this 
incumhent on the master in inclement and cold 
weather — so that the servant may be fitted lor 
the proper and full discharge of his duty in la- 
boring tbr his master. To supply them with 
plenty of good and wholesome food ; this is 
plainly reasonable and riglit, as every man 
knows by his own ex}>erience that it is impossi- 
ble for either man or beast to lal>or without a 
sufficient supply of food to keep up the heat 
and strength of the system which has been ex- 
hausted and consumed by continued exercise. 
It is the duty of the master to take care of his 
slaves when they become old, infirm, or so dis- 
eased as to render them unable to labor. This, 
we believe, is generally acknowledged by all 
slaveholders, and not oidy recognized as a duty, 
but actually performed. In this respect there 
is a very wide difference between the slave and 
the mere hireling. The hireling gets his oir)i 
food from the family in which he serves ; but, 
out of his small wages, he has to support his 
wife and children, clothe himself and clothe 
and feed both his wife and children. When the 
hired servant becomes old and helpless, he has 
jio kind master to take care of him in his declin- 
ing years; he must take cai'c of himself, Hnc on 



222 DUTIE^^ OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

public charity, be dependent on his children 
who are servants themselves, and have families 
of wives and children to support besides. It is 
the duty of the master to nurse and furnish 
medical aid to his sla\es when they are sick. 
This is also trenerallv recosrnized and observed 
by slaveholders. Here, again, the slave has the 
advantage of the mere hired servant, for he has 
not only to clothe hiuiself, furnish both food 
and clothing for his fjimily — if he has one — but 
to pay out of liis wages the doctor's bill, and, 
frequently, for a nurse besides ; for, if he stop 
to labor to nurse his sick family, his wages stop 
too. There is another point which is recognized 
as right among all slaveholders, and it is a point 
in which the slave is far above the mere hired 
servant ; it is this : in times of great scarcity, 
when God has withheld the rains and dews of 
heaven : when the staff of bread has been broken ; 
when cleanness of teetli threatens to stalk 
abroad, and famine is upon us, there is no dan- 
<»-er of the slave suffering for food, or clothing, 
so long as his master has any credit ; so long- 
as there can be any provisions secured in any 
way, the slave is sure of a part with his master's 
family. When there is a great depression in 
the market value, when there is a commercial 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SEKVANTS. 223 

•convulsion, the master does not suspend opera- 
tions on liis farm, turn out his slaves to starve 
or steal ; but he goes on as usual, and attempts 
to secure, at least, a competence for his family, 
children and servants. On the other hand, 
when these crashes come in the commercial 
world — when labor will not pay, the manufac- 
turer stops operations, dismisses his operatives, 
and they must do the best tlu'V can to find food 
and raiment for themselves and families ; they 
have no claim on their employer ; he has paid 
them the stipulated price of their labor; they 
are free nie/i, and must take care of themselves. 
This is the Northern side of slavery. 

Slavery may be properly defined to be a ccr- 
tain relation which hiboi' stuitahis to capitaL 
Wherever there is capital, there will be servi- 
tude. You may call this relation /Vee' or iVarc 
labor — whichever you choose — but it is a mat- 
ter of very small importance in a j'l'actical vie^^■ 
whether the service rendered is called voluntary 
or hicohintary. The man who holds the capi- 
tal will be the master, in despite of mere names 
— he is so in reality. The man who labors is 
the ser\ant, or slave, and his labor is not a mere 
matter of choice ; he must either labor, and la- 
bor at the price which the capitalist offers, oi" 



224 DUTIKS OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

lie must starve or steal. Xow, so far as the 
fact is concerned, it is a matter of verv small 
importance whether tliis is called voluntary or 
involuntary. We say that tlio hired servant's la- 
bor is not voluntary, for he would not thus labor 
if he could help himself. But, the mere fact that 
a man gets eight, ten, or even iifteen dollars per 
month for his labor, and out of this has to clothe 
himself, feed and clothe his family, pay his med- 
ical bill — that such an one is to be dignified with 
the jiigh-sounding title of a fire man^ when he 
is completely and to all practical intents and 
purposes at the mercy of a money-holder; if 
this be the boasted liberty of freedom-shriekers, 
then the free man is only so in name, while the 
rrolit!/ is wanting. Tliat hired servants get 
what is just and equal, we do not believe; they 
•do not get enough to support their families 
with the common comforts of life. They may 
get along by hard saving, close counting — pro- 
vided thev and tlicii- famihes eniov j^ood health, 
and there is no revulsion in the market; l)at wo 
be to these/Ve^' ine/t, if such unfortunate events 
happen. Iftlie innne were changed, the reality 
would l)e the same. The difference in the two 
things is this: the slaveliolder gives his slave 
liis choice either to work, or be ))unished for his 



Dl'TIKS OF MASTERS AND SERVANT?. 225 

ilisobedience ; the capitalist gives his servants 
the clioice to work at his prices, or starve or 
osteal. Tliis is the tiling as it is; this is the plain 
reality. The reaJ difference is only in the tnode 
of pnnishment. This is the great, the vast, the 
vaunted and the boasted difference between a 
free liired servant and a bond-man. 

The master is bound to keep the families of 
servants together until the children become 
grown, and not then to part them only through 
unavoidable necessity. The great objection to 
slavery is that it interferes with the conjugal 
and 2'f are /it ((I relations; that is, it often separ- 
ates husbands and wives, parents and children. 
We have set aside, by the word of God, the 
objection arising from the separation of husband 
and wife ; we have shown by a reference to the 
law that the marriage of a slave, or even a tem- 
porary bondman was not treated in the same 
manner as that of a freeman ; that the Hebrew 
servant could not take with him his family when 
he went out free; that the only condition on 
which he could remain with his wife and children, 
was to become a slave for life to the owner of 
them ; the master's r((/hf of property was not 
annnlled l>y the servant's freedom. We have 
also laid down what we believe to be the Scrip- 



i^26 dutip:s of masters and servaxts. 

tural law of equity in case one of the owners 
wishes to remove to a distant place. In answer- 
ing the objection we showed what is the duty 
of the master, and hence any further repetition 
of this point is unnecessary here. As to the 
children of the servants, they should not separ- 
ate them from their jjarents under a certain 
age, say fifteen years old. If the master is com- 
pelled to part with his servants, the mother and 
all her children under the age sj^ecified, should 
be sold together. Such, too, is to a great extent 
the practice among Christian masters. The 
laws of some of the slaveholding States recog- 
nize the same general princii^le. The children 
should be kept in the family of their master in 
order that they may bo cared for, nursed by 
their mothers, and instructed by their masters 
on moral and religious subjects. It certainly is 
the duty of Christian masters to instruct the 
children of tlieir servants in the great principles 
of Christianity, to catechise them as they do 
their own children, to require their presence at 
^amily devotion, and when they come to years of 
reflection, to leave them to choose for them- 
selves the particular branch of Christ's Church 
in wliicli they may wish to serve their God. 
Such appears to us to be the clear teachings of 
the Bible on this point. 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 2'2T 

"Father Abraham" liad three hundred and 
eighteen servants, but they were trained or in- 
titnicted. (Gen. xiv, 14.) We plead his exam- 
ple as a good man who held slaves, to show that 
there is no natural immorality in the relation. 
We must also follow his example, instruct our 
servant children, set them a good example, exer- 
cise our authority over them in requiring them 
to attend on the religious exercises of our fami- 
lies; then we can plead with God to bring on us^ 
the blessings he has promised to Abraham and 
his children, " I know him, (Abraham) that he 
will command his children and his household 
after him, and they shall keep the way of the 
Lord, to do justice and judgment, that the 
Lord may bring upon Abraham that which 
he hath spoken of him.'' (Gen. xviii, 19.) 
This sho\vs clearly that it is the duty of the 
master to instruct the servant children, and thus^ 
perform to them the duty of a legal father. We 
forbear from making any more comparisons- 
between bound and hired servants, because it is. 
said that comparisons are odious, and because 
one evil, if it be an evil, is not justified on the 
ground that another evil of equal magnitude is 
practiced by our opponent. We do not then 
attempt to justify slavery, if it were wrong in 



228 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

itself, on the ground that hired servants are in a 
worse condition than slaves. But when we 
liave shown that slavery is not a sin in itself, 
there can be no harm to let our opponents knoAV 
the grounds on which they stand ; to point out 
the evils of the system, and give them a hint that 
they had better pull the beams out of their own 
eyes before they go about to pull the motes out of 
their neighbors' eyes. " Let him that is without 
sin among you cast the first stone at us." 
Correct the social abuses which are among you, 
then we may be prepared to hear from you a 
lecture on our social sin. Until then we say^ 
"Physician, heal thyself." 

It is the duty of the master to protect the 
servant from abuse, or ill-treatment, and to have 
justice done them when they are wronged. 
This is necessary, because, from their very situ- 
ation, many low-principled and mean men love 
to domineer over a servant when they would 
not have the courage to say one word to men 
of their own color or standing:. There are also 
a kind of unprincipled men who would, if they 
dared, abuse a slave merely to gratify their ill- 
will towards his master. Still, slaveholders gen- 
erally would resent an insult offered to their 
slaves much sooner than if oftered to them- 



DUTIES OP MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 229 

selves, as such conduct indicates a low and little 
principle; it becomes contemptible in the mind 
of a thinking man. When slaves are accused 
of any crime, we never yet have seen a master 
refuse to see that they had a fair trial, the bene- 
fit of counsel and all the available testimony. If 
convicted, or proved guilty, a greater penalty 
than the law prescribes cannot be inflicted. 
This duty arises not only from the fact that the 
slave is the master's property, but because he is 
one of his master's household ; tlie master is the 
guardian ; to him the slave looks for protection; 
against injury and injustice, and he never looks 
in vain. If masters err at all on this point, they 
err in being too merciful. As to masteis just 
deliberately tying up their slaves and beating 
them so unmercifully as to cause death, we know 
nothino- not havino; known a sinole case of the 
kind in our life, which has been spent in slave- 
holding States. We have known a few cases in 
which masters have killed their slaves by strik- 
ing them while under the influence of passion, 
but such cases are rare, and men who are in the 
liabit of beating their slaves unmercifully, are 
just as much detested at the South as at the 
Xorth. Hence it is the duty of masters to lay 
upon servants no more labor than they can rea- 

T 



230 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

sonably perform, to allow them time to enjoy 
the comforts of life, and to preserve to them 
sacredly the rest of the Sabbath. We fear that 
many masters will be condemned by their Mas- 
ter in heaven for robbing him of the Sabbath. It 
is true that as a general rule, slaves are not re- 
quired to labor in the field on the Sabbath day 
for their masters, for the laws of most of the slave- 
holding States prohibit such things under heavy 
penalties. But we refer to a practice which is 
common in some families of making the servants 
do up odd jobs on the Sabbath, to save a day 
to the sinful practice of what is known as " Sun- 
day visiting," and thus the servants employed 
in the domestic arrangements of the flimily are 
hindered by over-preparations for the entertain- 
ment of company on the Sabbath day. Against 
such practice, whether practiced North or South, 
we here enter our solemn protest. It is not 
only depriving our servants of the rest to which 
God has given them an express claim in the 
fourth commandment, but is actually a robbery 
of God, taking that which belongs to him, and 
appropriating it to our own use. The Egyp- 
tians made the children of Israel to serve with 
rigor, and they made their lives bitter with hard 
bondage; they did set over them task masters 



DUTIES OP MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 231 

to afflict them with their burdens, and the chil- 
dren of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage, 
and they cried ; and their cry came up unto 
God, by reason of bondage, and God heard tlieir 
groaning; and God looked upon the children of 
Israel, and God had respect unto them. (Ex. i 
11, 13; ii, 23, 25.) Xow while God has given 
the master the right to his slaves, He requires 
that the master be merciful in tasking them, 
allow them the Sabbath to rest, and worship 
Him. Masters should think on these thinQ-s, 
for they have a Master in Heaven, who will judge 
every man, master and servant, according to 
his works, whether he be bond or free. With 
Him the external or outward distinctions of life 
is no recommendation or disadvantage, " If ye 
call on the Father, who without respect of per- 
sons judgeth according to every man's work." 
{1st Peter i, IV; also Ephs. vi, 9.) For the 
author of the Sabbath, and that God has given 
servants this day, see Ex. xx, 8-11, and 9th and 
10th verses particularly. " Six days shalt thou 
labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day 
is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God ; in it thou 
shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor 
thy daughter, nor thy man servant, nor thy maid 
servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is 



232 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

within tliy gates.'- This sliows cleariy that tlic 
master has no right to require his servants to do 
anything tliat is unlawful, or contrary to tlie 
revealed will of God. We abide by tlie law of 
our Great Creator. He has said that such things 
as laboring on His day is contrary to His law. 
Let, then, God be obeyed. He has given us six 
days to work, and required us to rest the sev- 
enth. If not on that seventh day of the week, 
ouQS(:r(^/(th of our time ; never having given men 
tlie right to work but .sv*,'' days in the week. Mas- 
ters sliould make reasonable allowances for fail- 
ures on the part of their servants to perform every 
minute thing, as something may and does fre- 
quently happen that it is impossible to fully 
comply with the letter of the commandments of 
their masters. To be too exacting often leads 
to stu}»id inditference to the master's interest, 
encourages, or produces the habit of deception 
on the part of the servant. A harsh, rash, 
tyrannical, fault-finding master is always a ter- 
ror to his servants, and destroys rather than 
secures the confidence of the servant. Every 
man knows this to be true who ever had the man- 
agement, either of children or servants. The 
man who is always scolding and threatening his 
children or servants is not respected or obeyed 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 233 

cheerfully by either ; but the man who is firm 
and calm, secures both confidence and respect, 
and his requirements are cheerfully observed. 
This course invites and secures confidence. 
Hence the Apostle exhorts masters [Ephs. vi, 9,] 
"to forbear threatening, knowing that your 
Master also is in heaven ; neither is there respect 
of persons with liim." It is also the duty of the 
master to correct the faults of servants, and 
require obedience to their lawful commands, 
and in case of stubbornness or surliness, to pun- 
ish them. This should always be sure and cer- 
tain^ but always just and merciful. The master 
should never suffer himself to correct or punish 
while under the influence of passion, or hatred. 
When done under the influence of passion it 
partakes more of revenge than punishment or 
correction, and frequently defeats the ends for 
which it was inflicted, "A servant," says Solo- 
mon, " will not be corrected by words, for 
though he understand he will not answer." 
[Prov. xxix, 19.] This clearly implies that 
something stronger than words must be used to 
bring the stubborn and slothful servant to love 
and obey his master. The right to inflict cor- 
poreal punishment for faults is also implied in 
tlie word, "Command his children and house- 



234 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

hold.'" The very idea of government implies 
the right to enforce obedience. The law author- 
ized the magistrate to inflict bodily j^unishment 
on the criminal, although he were a free raan. 
[Deut. XXV, 2, 3.] The parent is authorized to 
correct his child. "The rod and rejjroof give 
wisdom ; but a son left to himself bringeth his 
mother to shame." [Prov. xxix, 15.] "Correct 
thy son, and he shall give thee rest ; yea, he 
shall give delight unto thy soul." So neces- 
sary is the use of the rod to the proper 
training of children, that it is said, that " he that 
spareth the rod hateth his son ; but he that 
loveth him chasteneth him betimes." [Prov. 
xiii, 24.] If it is necessary in the family among 
children, it is equally necessary among stubborn 
and sullen servants. Hence says Solomon again, 
" A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and 
a rod for the fool's l)ack.'' [Prov. xxvi, 3.] The 
fool, therefore, who will not labor without it. 
jrive him the rod and make him work. This is 
doing him and the community both good ser- 
vice. It often saves the community from sup- 
porting a lazy, idle fellow, and protects their 
property from being stolen to sujiport or uphold 
him in his laziness. 

It is the duty of masters to furnish servants, 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. • 235 

or slaves, with religious instruction, or the 
preaching of the Gospel on the Sabbath ; correct 
their immoralities, and make a distinction 
between the good and faithful, and the vicious 
and idle. We have shown that it is the duty of 
the master to instruct them more particularlv 
when young, and then let them select that way 
in which they may choose to worship God, when 
they have come to years of reflection. It will 
not be a dithcult, but a jjleasant and easy task, 
to show that the Scriptural examples of good 
men teach the same doctrine, and we know from 
the character of the Christian master, that all 
that is necessary for him to comply is to be sat- 
isfied and convinced of his duty. We refer again 
to the example of Abraham, God, in making a 
covenant with him, included not only his chil- 
dren, but his servants. He that Avas born in his 
house, and he that was bought with his money 
was to be circumcised. [Gen. xvii, 9-14.] The 
circumcised servant that was bought with money 
was admitted to the religious feast of the pass- 
over. [Ex. xii, 44.] God also commended the 
example of Abraham. " I know Abraham that 
he will command his children and household 
after him, and they shall keep the way of the 
Lord." They arc under the direction of the 



236 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

master, tliey form a part of his household, and 
hence the master ought to care for their spirit- 
ual welfare. If he cannot instruct them, then 
he should employ a competent man to give them 
oral instruction; a man who is competent and 
apt to teach should be employed, as he will be 
better qualified to instruct them. We have 
found by experience that such a man can advance 
them taster in religious knowledge; he can secure 
confidence. A minister who preaches to the 
masters would be a very suitable person to 
employ. Let the masters pay him to attend 
expressly to the religious instruction of the ser- 
vants on the Sabbath day. We are opposed to 
the practice of employing negro preachers, foi* 
in a general way they are incompetent to teach 
from their limited education. Much of their 
so called preaching is unintelligible jargon; it 
neither edifies, nor instructs. That there are 
-exceptions to this rule we cheerfully admit; but 
we speak of the general results of such preach- 
ing. Moreover there are always some vicious 
and bad servants who do not go to preaching to 
learn, or to be instructed, but for the purpose of 
getting an opportunity to indulge in some vice, 
such as drunkenness, gambling, or some similar 
.■evil practice. P^'rom this source sometimes diffi- 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SEIIVANTS. 237 

culties arise wliich draw innocent servants into 
ii difficulty, and the meetings are broken up by 
a disturbance, and frequently masters prevent 
their servants from attending upon such places, 
to keep them out of a difficulty. Still the plan 
of having preaching to them by a white minister 
should not be abandoned. It is clearly the duty 
of the masters to prevent all disorders, keep and 
enforce li-ood order. There are a ofreat manv 
white persons who go to church merely to be 
going, and are only prevented from disturbing 
the assembly by the fear of the penalties of civil 
law. Such persons have to be kept in check by 
the proper authorities. So also must the vicious 
and wicked servants. In most of the churches 
in the Southern States galleries are provided for 
the accommodation of the servants. If these 
are not found in all churches, there are gene- 
rally a few seats set apart in the body of the 
church for the benefit of the servants. Yet a 
sermon intended for educated people is of little 
advantage to our servants. Hence the necessity 
of the master either instructing them himself, 
or employing a minister of the Gospel to do it 
for him. Oral instruction is the best mode for 
commnnicatino- relioious knowledi^e to the 
slaves. It is not necessary that they should e\en 



238 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

read, in order to acquire a correct knowledge 
of the attributes of God, the plan of salvation 
through Christ, and all the practical duties 
required by the New Testament. We have 
shown this to be a rational and feasible plan by 
the example of the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, 
who, as a general thing, could not read, or could 
not have the opportunity of reading the Scrip- 
tures and other books for themselves. And it 
is a fact open and known to all, that those per- 
sons who are not able to read retain much more 
of a sermon, and keep it longer than those who 
can read. The reason of this is plain. Such a 
person is dependent for all his information on 
the instruction of others. Hence their attention 
is wholly fixed on the subject. Neither should 
the master neglect this duty merely because 
some ungodly or wicked man is opposed to it. 
Such a man, if he had his own way would drive 
every minister out of the land, and burn all the 
Bibles too, because they reprove his wicked con- 
duct. Nor should it be neglected on account 
of the clamor of abolitionists, for we are not 
responsible to them, or any human power for the 
religious instruction of our slaA'es, but to God j 
and if theknowdedgeof the Gospel — we mean the 
possession of r^al and genuine piety — does not 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 239 

make better servants of them, if it does not make 
them more faithful, obedient, lionest and n})i-ight 
then our experience and observation are all at 
fault. And if the preaching of the pure and 
simple truths of the gospel tend to break down 
the system of domestic slavery, we say, let it go. 
But we have no fears on this point so long as 
meddlesome men can be prevented from poison- 
ing their minds with tlieir unscriptural, radical 
and devilish doctrines. The communication of 
scriptural truth never does work mischief. To 
assert that it does is a slander on the Bible. 
But the whole mischief consists in an improper 
use of the truth. The mischief is to be found in 
the corrupt and depraved passions of the human 
heart, its hatred to the truth and its opposition 
to God and His holy law. The human heart is 
" deceitful above all things and desperately 
wicked," and it often exemplifies its superlative 
wickedness in using, or rather abusing the trutli 
to accomplish its own selfish and unlawful pur- 
poses. And here we wish to enter our testi- 
mony, viz : That where slaves become really 
l^ious, they are much better in all the relations 
of life; they are cheerful, contented and happy, 
are closely attached to their masters and to 
their families, and this attachment can only be 



240 DUTIES OF mastf:rs and servants. 

destroyed or broken by death. To say that a 
slave does not love his master — become strongly 
attached to him and his family — is the lowest 
slander. It is to injure or misrepresent the 
slave. It is a violation of the ninth command- 
ment. "Thou shalt not bear false witness- 
against thy neighbor." The abolitionists claim 
the slave as his neighbor, yet he slanders him 
when he says the slave does not love his master? 
or is strongly attached to him and his family ; 
and he should remember who has said that " all 
liars shall have their portion in the lake that 
burnetii w^ith tire and brimstone, which is the 
second death." Beware, then, lest you incur 
this dreadful penalty. 

The preceding things seem to be what is in- 
chided by the Apostle when he says, (Colos. iv^ 
1,) " Masters, give unto your servants that 
which is just and equal ; knowing that ye have 
a Master in heaven." Many Christian denomi- 
nations at the South have missions expressly for 
the benefit of the slaves, which have thus for 
been eminently successful. Our Methodist 
brethren have taken the lead on this point, we 
believe, and we bid them God speed in their 
noble \vork. Let masters support and encour- 
age the Missionary of the Cross, and great good 
will be the result. 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SEllVANTS. 24T 

AYe now advance to tlie next division of our 
subject, viz : 

2. The Duties of Servant t<^ or Skives to their 
Masters. — The commandments of God are full 
and explicit on this point. Servants are retjuired 
to obey their masters in all things ; to render- 
obedience, not merely while the eye of the mas- 
ter is u})on them, but to do so from the fact that 
it is the revealed will of God ; the highest author- 
ity known to any human being. "Servants, 
obey in all things your masters according to the 
iiesh, not with eye-service as men-pleasers, but 
in singleness of heart, fearing God." (Colos. iii, 
22.) By masters eiccorelinrj to tJie flesh is meant 
masters in this world — earthly masters — in dis- 
tinction from God, who is the Master of all, both 
servants and masters. [See Job iii, 17-19.] It 
is the duty of the servant to count his master 
worthy of all honor. "Let as many servants as 
are under the yoke count their masters worthy 
of all honor, that the name of God and his doc- 
trine be not blasphemed; and they that have 
believing masters, let them not despise them, 
because they are bix'thren ; but rather do them 
service, because they are faithful and beloved, 
partakers of the benefit." (1st Tim. vi, 1, 2.) 
"Which of you having a servant ploughing, or 
u 



242 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

feeding cattle, will say niito him by and by, 
wlien he is come from the field, go and sit down 
to meat ?" This would be to reverse the order 
of things, to change all the relations, and at 
once put the servant on an equality with his 
master. "Will he not rather say unto him, 
make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thy- 
self and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken ; 
and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink. Doth 
he thank that servant because he did the things 
that were commanded him ? I trow not." [Luke 
xvii, 7-9.] He has only done his duty ; only 
performed a service which he owes to his master. 
Servants are to do the service of their masters 
with a cheerful and good will. "With good 
will, doing service as unto the Lord, and not 
unto men." [Ephes. vi, 5-8.] It is the duty of 
servants to try to please their masters ; not to be 
stubborn, sullen, or talking back, or grumbling 
when told to perform certain things. "Exhort 
servants to be obedient unto their own masters 'y. 
and to please them well in all things, not an- 
swering again." [Titus ii, 9.] They are 
expressly forbidden to steal from their masters* 
but on the contrary, fidelity is enjoined on them : 
"not purloining but showing all good fidelity; 
that they may adorn the doctrine of God our 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 243 

Savior in all things." This shows plainly that 
the Christian religion was not designed to break 
down the relations of life, or to teach servants 
that they are on an equality with their masters, 
as anti-slavery men teach ; to show that the gos- 
pel was not designed to teach rebellion, but 
submission and respect for those whoni God has 
in his Providence placed over us in the present 
life. The servant, then, who is an eye-servant 
to his earthly master, Avill be either a hypocrite 
or mere formalist in religion. Those servants 
who profess to be Christians are under higher 
obligations to be more obedient to their mas- 
ters, to set an example before their fellow-ser- 
vants, than the mere servant who makes no 
pretensions to religion at all. This is necessary, 
that men may see that religion is not a mere 
form, but a reality ; that it makes better servants 
as well as better masters, and that it increases 
rather than diminishes the obligation to obedi- 
ence. Should his master be a Christian also, 
then on this account he should specially love 
and obey him. The passage we have quoted 
already from 1st Timothy, vi, 1, 2, proves these 
positions to be in accordance with the teachings 
of the Word of God. If the master is hard to 
please, threatens, and even punishes more than 



244 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

he ouglit to do, this by no means justifies the 
servant in any act of disobedience or disrespect 
to his master, but he is to do his best to please 
him, and leave his case in the hands of a just 
and righteous God. This is certainly the doc- 
trine of the New Testament on the point. 
" Servants be subject to your masters with all 
fear, not only to the (jood and gentle^ but to the 
froiL-ard^'''' or morose ; those who would be angry 
without cause, and use severity when displeased ; 
" for this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience 
toward God endure grief, suffer wrongfully ; for 
what glory is it, if, Avhen ye be buffetted for 
your faults, ye shall take it patiently ; but if, 
when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it 
patiently, this is acceptable with God ; for here- 
unto were ye called ; because Christ also suffered, 
leaving us an example, that ye should follow his 
steps." It is no praise for a servant t© be 
patient when he is punished for his faults. He 
is no more an object of compassion than a child, 
a man, or any other criminal that receives the 
penalty of his offence. The first part of the 
twentieth verse in the above quotation shows 
this clearly, and it recognizes the right of the 
master to correct the f^iults or misconduct of the 
servant. [Sec 1st Peter ii, 10-25.] The slave, 



DUTIES OP MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 245 

then, when he is punished for his faults, is not 
an object over which we are to shed a gallon or 
two of crocodile tears. This is false sympathy, 
and if it were carried out, would lead to the ab- 
olition of every kind of bodily punishment, and 
would leave every one without government or 
restraint. This may do for a squeamish and 
sickly sentimentality, but is of little value in the 
practical government of this wicked and sinful 
woJ'ld. Theories may be very beautiful in them- 
selves, but be utterly worthless when they are 
to be applied to the actual condition of men and 
things. If there were no sin in this world, no 
bad men, then we might get along without 
any difficulty, but transgressors must be pun- 
ished, and slaves must be corrected. If the mas- 
ter is unmerciful, or inflicts the punishment 
without any just cause, then, under these circum- 
stances, for the slave to take it patiently, 
commends him to God. [See latter part of 20th 
verse.] And it is only in a case of this kind that 
the example of Christ applies. The Apostle 
says of that, he "did no sin, neither Avas guile 
found in his mouth." " He was an innocent per- 
son." " Who, when he was reviled, reviled not 
again." He did not abuse his persecutors, and 
murderers, and attempt to justifv his conduct 
u* 



«► 



246 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

on the ground tliat they were treating him un- 
justly. " When he suttered he threatened not ; 
but committed himself to him that judgeth 
righteously." It is only when servants suffer 
wrongfully that they can }»Iead witii proper ap- 
plication the example of Clirist. We commend 
this passage to some of our anti-slavery friends 
at the North, who counsel the servant or slave 
to shoot his master. Servants are not author- 
ized to steal from their masters. See the 
example and punishment of Gehazai, (2d Kings, 
V. 21-27,) for his lying and theft. 

If servants will foithfully do their whole duty 
to their masters, and truly serve God in their 
stations as servants, they will be respected, 
loved and protected by their masters and hon- 
ored of (lod as well as others; and they will 
have to acconnt to God for the manner inwhicli 
they serve their masters on earth. " Knowing 
that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, tlie 
same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be 
bond or free." (Eph. vi : 8.) See also, Gene- 
sis, 24-th chapter. 

We will now state a summary of the duties 
of servants or slaves to their masters, and we 
will ii"ive it in the lano-uao-e of Dr. C. 0. Jones, 
to whose excellent "Catechism of Scripture 



DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 247 

Doctrine and Practice for the Oral Instruction 
-of Colored Persons," we have been largely in- 
debted for many important things in this chap- 
ter. [See pages 127-151.] 

1. " Servants are to count their masters ' wor- 
thy of all hoaoi^'' as those whom (irod lias placed 
over them ; '•(clthallfiar^ they invQ to he sub - 

ject to tJiem: and to obey tliem hi all thln(/f< 
possible and lawful, with (/ood will and with en- 
deavor to please them weU., so that there may be 
no occasion for fault-finding or correction, and 
let servants serve their masters as faithfully be- 
hind their backs as before their faces. God is 
present to see, if their masters are not. They 
must not be eye servants and men-pleasers, but 
seek in all things they do to ]»Iease God, their 
Master in Heaven." 

2. "Should they fall into the hands of hard 
and unjust and unequal masters, and suffer 
vronfifidly^ their course, according to divine 
■command, is to take If patlenthj ; referring their 
-case to God ; looking to Him for support in 
their trials, and for rewards for their patience ; 
and the Lord will surely remend^er them." 

3. "Servants may sometimes suppose that 
they may, without the displeasure of God, //e^^y 
wvl deceli'e^ and )itt(d from their i/iasfers. But 



248 DUTIES OF MASTERS AND SERVANTS. 

it is not so. With such God is not pleased ; lie 
requires tnttli and honesty in all person ><^ un- 
der all clrcnnistance?).'''' 

4. " Chrlstkui servants should be examples 
to cdl others ofhonestij and obedience^ otherwise 
they will bring a reproach upon religion and 
brand themselves in the eyes of all as hypo- 
crites. More is expected of tliemthan of those 
who make no profession." 

5. "Are you a servant? Care not for it. If 
you are a Christian you are the Lord's freeman; 
-and if you are unfjiithful in your station, you 
shall, as well as the men higher and greater than 
yourself, obtain the crown of life. God places 
some men in one station and some in another, ac- 
cording to His will. What he requires is, that 
every man in his particular station serve Him, 

.^nd all will be well for time and eternity." 



THE FIGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 240 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW— THE DUTY OF CITIZENS IN' 
RELATION TO IT— IS IT UNSCRIPTURAL? 

It would seem to the man who recognized 
the Bible as the rule by w^hich all moral actions 
are to be judged, that nothing more would be 
necessary to secure obedience to the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, (which declares [Art. 
iv, Sec. 2,] that " No person held to service or 
labor in one State, under the laws thereof, es- 
caping into another, shall, in consequence of any 
law, or regulation therein, be discharged from 
such service or labor, but shall be delivered up 
on claim of the party to whom such service or 
labor may be due,") than the mere statement of 
the requirement of that instrument, and a brief 
proof that this clause of our country's Consti- 
tution is in accordance with the teachings and 
spirit of the Scriptures. 

The Fuo^itive Slave Law is based on the above 
clause of the Constitution of the United States; 



250 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

and, if there were no formal law on the subject, 
this clause is so clear that its meaning cannot be 
mistaken by any honest citizen who wishes to 
understand and not pervert the meaning of our 
national compact. There is another point that 
is exceedingly clear in this case ; and that is, 
that all laws made by anti-slavery State Legis- 
latures to prevent the master from recovering 
his property, are contrary to the Constitution of 
the United States. This is not our individual 
opinion, for the highest judicial authority known 
or recognized by the Constitution, has declared 
the Fugitive Slave Law to be constitutional ; 
and, of course, all laws of the individual States 
are, by necessity and natural construction, un- 
constitutional. The decision of the Supreme 
€ourt of the United States has settled the con- 
stitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law, which 
is based on the section we have already quoted 
from the Constitution. To prevent the execu- 
tion of this law constitutes rebellion against the 
civil authorities of the country; and this rebel- 
lion is attempted to be sustained as justifiable 
on the ground that the law itself and the clause 
of the Constitution on which it is based, are 
contrary to all divine laws, and to resist is a 
<luty all citizens owe to their God. This is the 



THE FLCITIVE SLAVE LAW. 251 

objection to the law, if we can clearly under- 
stand the expressed opinions of the opponents 
of the law. The supreme judicial tribunal of 
the nation is openly denounced, and even the 
professed ministers of the peaceful Redeemer 
liave counselled opposition and rebellion against 
tlie supreme authority of the land. 

The only question, then, that properly comes 
before ns is. Does this Fugitive Slave Law, or 
this clause of our country's Constitution, con- 
travene the law of God ? A satisfactory an- 
swer to this question, it seems to us, should be 
a final stttlement of the matter in the mind of 
every conscientious citizen wdio wishes to know 
the truth ; and, knowing the teachings of the 
Bible, is W'illing to conform his opinions and 
conduct to the law of God. There are certain- 
things, which, if the laws of the land should 
require of us, we w^ould be under obligation to 
disobey. When the civil laws come in direct 
conflict with the laAvs of God, then we should 
"obey God rather than man." But, in order 
to justify our disobedience to " the powers that 
be," tlie matter must be dearly a violation of 
the revealed will of God, and not a mere matter 
or point of " doubtful disputation." It should 
require us to commit murder, worship idols, telL 



252 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

lies, say that whioli is not the will of God is His 
will, or prohibit ministers from preaching some 
cardinal doctrine of the Bible, such as the resur- 
rection of Christ, or something e<iually i)lain. 
Many of tliose who advocate rebellion against 
tlie Fugitive Slave Law and the Constitution of 
the nation, suppose that it is just as clear from 
the Bible that slavery is a sin in itself — if not 
a prohibited evil — as that murder, idolatry, or 
swearing falsely, are sins in themselves. But 
men's opinio}is are not the rule by which others 
are to be controlled in matters pertaining to 
the conscience. In matters of mere business — 
as to the best way a thing may be done — as to 
speculations in science, or similar things — we 
may follow human authority. But, when men 
begin to add their mere opinions to the Bible, 
and wish others to be governed by them as of 
equal, if not of higher authority than the 
Scriptures, we have no more respect for their 
opinions than we have for any other mere hu- 
man authority. 

The Bible teaches one thing clearly ; and that 
is, no inspired writer of it ever did encourage 
a servant or slave to run away from his master. 
We have incidentally alluded to this matter. 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 2r53 

The matter, now, eomes fairly before us. 
What, then, are the teaeliings of the Scriptures 
in relation to fugitives from labor, or tlie service 
of those to whom such labor or service is due? 

Slavery commenced soon after the flood ; 
Abraham had over three hundred. Slaves 
have a corru[)t or sinful nature, as well as other 
human beings. They soon commenced exhibit- 
ing their opposition to the control of their' 
masters; hence, the experiment of runnino- 
away from them was adopted as the easiest and 
most expeditious plan of getting rid of the con- 
trol of the master. The first runaway of whom 
we have any authoritative account in the Bible 
was a female, or bond-sorvant. (Gen. xvi, 1-9.) 
"When her mistress dealt hardly with her, she 
iied from her foce." While she escaped from 
the flice of her mistress, she could not, however, 
get into a place where she was hid from the all- 
seeing eye of God, for "the angel of the Lord 
found her by a fountain of water in the wilder- 
ness — by the fountain in the way to Shur — and 
he said, " Hagar, Sarai's maid, wdience comest 
thou, and whither wilt thou go ? " Such were 
the questions addressed by the angel to this 
fugitive. She was, no doubt, astonished at this 
stranger thus addressing her by name ; and, as 

V 



254 , THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

Sarai's maid, how did he know lier name, and 
how did he know tliat she was the property of 
Sarai? These tilings at once brought forcibly 
to her mind that she was still in the presence of 
one who knew her, and, hence, she replies, "I 
iiee from the face of my mistress, Sarai." Xow, 
here we have a runaway found by an angel. 
Let us see how the ano-el manao-ed the case. 
\Ve can easily imagine how many of the anti- 
slavery men at the Xorth would have talked to 
this fug^itive. Thev would have told Hao-ar 
that her mistress was a brute ; that she was 
" violatino' the law of nature" in holding* her in 

CD , Cj 

subjection; that she was a "woman-stealer," a 
" robber," and a " murderer ; " and would have 
told her that her mistress had no claim to her 
service ; that any law that would require her to 
return to her mistress — to live under her tyran- 
nical sway — was an outrage on the laws of 
humanity, and expressly contrary to the law of 
God — for they have, by the acts of their church 
courts, excluded all slaveholders from their 
communion, and classed them with robbers, 
murderers and men-stealers. After this long- 
speech, they would conclude by squeezing out 
a little money and starting her oft' to some 
other nation. But, did the angel of the Lord 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 255 

give Ilagar such instructions ? Let hira speak 
for liiniself: "And the ano-el of tlie Lord said 
unto her, Return to thy mistress and submit 
thyself under her hands." 

We have drawn tliis contrast to sliow the 
man of plain, common sense, that the conduct 
of those who counsel disobedience to the civil 
authorities, when an attempt is made to exe- 
cute the fugitive slave law, and instruct the run- 
away slave to shoot his master, is directly in the 
face, not only of the constitution of their coun- 
try, but in opposition to the teachings of the 
Bible. They plead the authority of the " higher 
law^," and that is equally against them with the 
civil laws of the nation. It will be said that 
this occurred in the early ages of the world, 
Avhen men were ignorant and their information 
was very limited. We live in the middle of 
the nineteenth century, when men have become 
so smart that they must make the Bible teach 
their view ot the matter or they will throw it 
away and blaspheme the author of it as unwor- 
thy of their confidence or respect. 

The Xew Testament, we are told, is against 
the law. How or where, we have never yet 
been able to hndthe chapter or verse. Doctor 
Wayland says, " the Xew Testament neither 



256 THE fugitivp: slave law. 

commands masters to manumit tlieir slaves nor 
authorizes slaves to free themselves from their 
masters," And a greater than Dr. Wayland or 
any mere theorist, has by his conduct shown 
that the fugitive slave law is not contrary to the 
spirit of the Gospel. The inspired Apostle, 
Paul, thought t'lat it was his duty to send back 
Onesimus to his master, Philemon. We are 
aware that it has been denied by abolitionists 
that Onesimus was a slave or the property of 
Philemon, but a denial is not a proof o{\\\q 
feet. We do not intend to go into a controver- 
sy with the anti-slavery construction of Paul's 
epistle to Philemon on the subject, but content 
ourselves by simply quoting two or three wri- 
ters who have been considered standards in the 
interpretation of the scriptures, and who are 
known to be, if not openly, yet in sentiment, 
opposed to the system of slavery as it exists in 
this country. 

llev. Wm. Jay (Works, vol. 2, page 127) ima- 
gines and puts down the following dialogue as 
havino* occurred between Paul and Onesimus: 

Onesimus waits on Paul and says: — "Sir, I 
lately heard you preach, and I am one of the 
characters you described and condemned." 

"What is vour name? '' 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 257 

*' OnesinuLS." 

'' What arc you ? " 

■" I was a slave." 

*'And who was your master ? " 

" Philemon, of Colosse." 

"Him I know. But what, Onesimus, brought 
you here ? " 

" Onesimus weeps. Paul, being at length 
' persuaded of his sincerity, would have taken 
Onesimus into his service, had it not looked like 
detaining Avhat is deemed another mini's pro- 
perty. He therefore conscientiously resolves to 
send him back to Philemon."' 

The emphasis in the foregoing is our own. 

Dr. Scott, whose opinions we have shown to 
be anything than favorable to slavery, uses the 
following language about this matter in his pre- 
face to the Epistle to Philemon : 

" Wlien the apostle was imprisoned at Rome. 
Onesimus, a slave of Pliilemon, having, as it is 
generally thought, been guilty of some dishon- 
esty, left his master and fled to that city, though 
at the distance of several hundred miles. When 
he came thither, curiosity, or some similar mo- 
tive, induced him to attend on St. Paul's min- 
istry, which it pleased God to bless for his con- 
verson. After he had i>iven verv satistactorv 



'258 THE FUGitlVE SLAVE LAW. 

proof of a real cliange, and manifested an ex- 
•cellent disposition by suitable behavior, which 
had greatly endeared him to the apostle, he 
judged it proper to send him back to his mas- 
ter, by whom he wrote this epistle, in order 
'to procure Onesimus a more tavorable reception 
Chan he could otherwise have expected." 

Again, in his note on verses 12th-lGth, the 
same author remarks : " Onesimus was Fliile- 
inon's legal property, and St. Paul had required 
and prevailed with Onesimus to return to him, 
having made sufficient proof of his sincerity; 
and recpiested Philemon to receive him with the 
same kindness as he would his (the apostle's) 
own son according to the ilesh — equally dear 
to him as his spiritual child. He would gladly 
have kept him at Tvome, to minister to him in 
his confinement, which Onesimus would wil- 
lino^lv have done, bein<^\ in the bonds of the 
Gospel, attached to liim from Christian love 
and gratitude, and as lie knew that Philemon 
would jo^'fuily have done him any service in 
person if he had been at Rome; so he would 
have considered Onesimus as ministering to him 
in his master's stead. But he would not do 
anything without his master's consent, lest he 
should seem to extort the benefit, and Philemon 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 259 

'should appear to act IVoin "necessity" rather 
than "from a willing mind." He had, indeed^ 
hopes of derivmg benefit from Onesimus' faith- 
ful service at some future period, by Philemon's 
free consent : yet he was not sure this was the 
Lord's purpose I'especting him, for perhaps He 
permitted him to leave his master for a season 
in so improper a manner, in order that, being- 
converted, he might be received on his return 
with such affection, and might abide with Phil- 
emon with such faithfulness and diligence, that 
they should live together the rest of their lives, 
as fellow heirs of eternal felicity. In this case 
he knew that Philemon would no longer con- 
sider Onesimus merely as a slave, but view him 
as above a slave — even as a brother beloved." 
We have quoted this long note because it 
gives the main points contained in the Epistle, 
viz: that Onesimus was a runaway slave — the 
legal property of Philemon ; that the Apostle 
did not encouraGre him to abuse and resist his 
master, but to return to him with a letter de- 
siring for him a more favorable reception on 
account of the fact tliat the runaway had be- 
come a Christian ; that although a Christian, 
that did not free him from the lawful authority 
of his master; he was still Philemon's slave, al- 



260 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

thougli lie had become "the Lord's freeman." 
The Apostle would do nothing without the con- 
sent of the slave's master. (See verses 13, 14.) 

Onesimus was Philemon's i<plvltii(d hrotJier^ 
though in a c'/i'// sense lie was his slave; "in 
Chi-ist Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greeks 
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither 
male nor female — for ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus." (Gal. iii, 28.) 

Paul sent the runaway back to his master 
with a letter to secure him a fworable reception. 
The abolitionist o-ives tlie funjitive some money 
and a horse to carry him, and starts him oif to 
Canada or some other place, by the "Under- 
ground Railroad." Where, then, is the Chris- 
tian conduct of the abolitionists '/ If Paul was 
right, they are wrong. If they ai'e right, then 
Paul was wrong. There is no similarity in their 
course and conduct. Onesimus, when he ran 
away from his master and went to Rome, heard 
the Gospel preaclied. It would be a matter of 
very great uncertainty whether the fugitive 
slave, if lie were to go Into many churches north 
of Mason and Dixon's Line, would hear anything 
but a tirade of abuse against slaveholders ; and 
it is very certain tliat, instead of being made 
better and moi-e useful to his mastei', his mind 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 261 

M'oiild be tilled with all kinds of wild notions 
about cqiudlfjj^ tyranny, robbery and murder; 
and instead of bringing a letter of reconimend- 
ation from some good Christian minister of tlie 
North, he would liave Sharp's rities in abun- 
dance and Colt's revolvers without number. 

Tlie case of Onesimus is only another exem- 
plitication of the fact that the religion of tlie New 
Testament, instead of making men rebellious, 
makes them useful or profitable, where they had 
been before unprofitable. " I beseech thee for 
my son Oresimus, whom I have begotten in my 
bonds; which in time past was to thee unprofit- 
able, but now })rofitable to tliee and to me." 
(Verses 10, 11.) 

When the fuo:itive slave law was first enacted 
by the Congress of the United States, nearly 
every religious body in the North, at their next 
meetings afterward, denounced the law as un- 
scriptural, and warned their members against 
having anything to do with its execution under 
penalty of suspension or excommunication from 
the fellowship of the church. Some of tliese 
ecclesiastical courts merely asserted that the 
law^ was unrighteous and unscriptural, while 
some fev/ tried to jfvoi'e the position which they 
had taken on the subject was in accordance with 



262 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

the teachings of tlie Bible: "Thou shalt not 
deUver unto his master the servant which is 
escaped unto thee from his master; he shall 
dwell with thee ; even among you in that place 
which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where 
it liketh him best ; thou shalt not oppress him." 
(Dent, xxiii, 15-10.) This is the proof given by 
one ecclesiastical C3urt against the unscriptural 
character of the fugitive slave law. AVe know 
this, though we cannot now lay our hands on 
the document itself. Dr. Wayland is of the 
same opinion. "This precept, I think," says 
he, (Letters on Slavery, pp. 50, 60) " clearly 
shows that Moses intended to abolish slavery. 
How could slavery long continue in a country 
where every one is forbidden to deliver up the 
fao-itive slave '? How difterent Avould be the 
condition of slaves, and how soon would slavery 
itself cease, were this the law of compulsory 
bondage among us." 

This, to our stupid comprehension, seems to 
be a Hat contradiction of the very paragraph 
before the one we have quoted. We cannot 
see what the Doctor meant. He says : " Every 
one must, I think, perceive the unreasonableness 
of pleading the Jewish laws as authority for an 
institution so entirelv dissimilar, and so forget- 



Tin: FUCilTIVE 5LAVF I,AW. ZUO 

fill of the limitations by which that practice was 
originally guarded. It' it be said that the Jew- 
ish commonwealth was so peculiar it is impos- 
sible to conform ourselves to its laws in this 
respect, this, I think, establishes tlie very point 
in dispute, namely: that the Jewish law was 
made exclusively for that people, and can be 
pleaded in justification by no other people what- 
ever." Still, all of Dr. Wayland\s abolition 
friends at the North j^lead this very passage as 
jDroof divine against the fugitive slave law. He 
thinks that every one must see the unreason- 
ableness of pleading the Jewish laws as authority 
for an institution so entirely dissimilar." And 
we equally wonder that he does not enlighten 
his Northern abolition friends on the unreason- 
ableness of (pioting this Jewish law as authority 
as^ainst our fui^^itive slave law, ao^ainst the con- 
duct of the Angel of the Lord, in sending back 
Ilagar to her mistress Sarah, and Paul, in send- 
ing Onesimus back to Philemon. The doctrine 
of the " higer law," as it is called, is founded 
on this passage in Deuteronomy, xxiii, 15, 16. 
We know that Dr. Wayland thinks that Moses 
intended to abolish slavery by the enactment of 
this law. Yet that same law-giver taught the 
Jews in the 25th chapter and 4Gth verse of 



2(34 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

Leviticus, that they raiglit buy bond-men and 
bond-maids of the heathen, and of the strangers 
that did sojourn among them; that they might 
have them for a possession ; that they should be 
their bond-men forever ; and tliat they should 
give them as an inheritance to their children 
after them. This looked very much like Moses 
intended to abolish slavery!! If he did, he 
pursued just about as strange a course about the 
matter as Dr. Wayland has taught us that 
Christ and his apostles took to teach tliat slavery 
is wrong under the New Testament dispensa- 
tion. The truth of the matter is, the law in 
question referred to foreign slaves, to those who 
ran away from heathen masters. The case of 
the Egyptian slave found by David's men, which 
we have noticed in its proper place, shows the 
serq^tural meaning of the passage in Deuteron- 
omy. The text itself, when rightly understood, 
or explained by the true meaning of its own 
words conveys the idea which wehave advanced. 
The expression : The servant which is escaped 
from his master unto thee, contains the key to 
the whole' law. Who is meant by "thee," in 
this text? It certainly, in the general language 
of the law, means the Israelites or Hebrews. 
This is plainly its meaning from the 14th verse, 



THE FL'C^ITIVE SLAVE LAW. 2G5 

and several verses in tlie same eliapter. Let us 
substitute the abolition construction ot tlie pas- 
sage and see how the law will i-ead. "Thou, a 
Hebrew, shalt not deliver unto his master another 
Hebrew, the servant which is escaped from his 
master, a Hebrew, unto thee ; he shall dwell with- 
thee, a Hebrew, even among you, Hebrews.''' 
This construction of the law is too absurd to be 
pursued further. We have shown that Dr. A. 
Clarke gives the same construction that we do. 
Lest the reader has forgotten the note, we here 
re-produce it, verse l5th : " TJiou shaJt not 
deliver the senumt irJilcJi is escaped unto t/iee^'"''^ 
that is, a servant who left an idolatrous master, 
that he might join himself to God and to his 
peo])le. In any other case, it would have been 
injustice to have harbored the runaway.'" We 
will quote another author who was no mean 
scholar, and who was by no means a friend of 
the institution of slavery. [See Liberty and 
Slavery, pp. 155, 156.] The first inquiry of 
course is, says Moses Stewart, Associate Profes- 
sor of Sacred Literature in the Theological 
Institution of Andorcr, in regard to these very 
words, "Where does his master live? Among 
the Hebrews, or amons; foreiLj:ners ? The Ian- 
guage fidly develojjs this, and answers the 



266 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

question, ' He has escaped from his master unto 
the Hebrews ; (the text says thee^ tliat is Israel;) 
he shall dwell uyiththee^ even among you^ in one 
of thy gates.'' Of course, then, he is an immi- 
grant^ and did not dwell among them before his 
flight. If he liad been a Hebrew servant belong- 
ing to a Hebrew, the wliole face of the thing- 
would be changed. Restoration or restitution, 
if we may judge by the tenor of the property 
laws among the Hebrews, would have surely 
been enjoined. But, be that as it may, the lan- 
guage of the text puts it beyond a doubt that 
the servant is a foreigner.^ and has fled from a 
heathen master. This entirely changes the 
complexion of the case. The Hebrews were 
God's chosen people, and were the only nation 
on earth which worshipped the only living and 
true God. In case a slave escaped from them, 
(the heathen,) and came to the Hebrews, two 
things were to be taken into consideration, 
accordino^ to the views of the Jewish leo^islator. 
The first was, that the treatment of slaves 
among the heathen was far more severe and 
rigorous than it could lawfully be under the Mo- 
saic law. The heathen master ]30ssessed the 
power of life and death, of scourging or im- 
prisoning, or putting to excessive toil, even to 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 267 

any extent tliat lie pleased. Not so among the 
Hebrews. Humanity pleaded thei'e for the 
protection of the fugitive. The second and most 
important consideration was, that only among 
the Hebrews could the fugitive slave come to a 
knowledge and worship of the only living and 
true God." The authorities, both human and 
divine, are against the abolition interpretation; 
their own witnesses testify against them. They 
must prove that Southern slaveholders are 
heathen. We suppose that w^ith them this 
would be a very easy task. The law has no ap 
plication unless we were tv:!0 instead of on^. 
nation. And lastly, they must show that the 
slaves of the Southern States have no means, no 
oral instructions, or any other way in which 
they can acquire a knowledge of the worship 
and nature of the only living and true God. 
Until these things are done fairly, we hold that 
passage proves nothing for abolition church 
courts, which pass resolutions against the laws 
of the land, instruct their members to disobey 
the civil authorities, and teach rebellion against 
the government and laws of the land. They 
hurl their anathemas against the National Legis- 
lature for passing laws for the purpose of carry, 
ing out the provisions of the Federal Compact, 



268 THE FUGITIVK SLAVE LAW 

to in-otect till' property of its citizens ; declare 
that slaveliolders are murderers, robbers, and 
nien-stealers. Tliey declare in solemn conclave 
that '' Slaveholding, that is, the holding of unot- 
fending human beings in involuntary bondage and 
considering and treating them as property, and 
subject to be bought and sold, is a violation of 
the law of God, and contrary both to the letter 
and spirit of Christianity." [Basis of Union 
between the Associate Reformed and Associate 
Churches, Art. xiv, of Slaveholding.] 

While they thus declare with great clearness, 
what they consider sin in this, they forget that 
they are teaching rebellion against the laws of 
the land, and violating openly, and in their col- 
lective capacity, the plain law of the Bible : " Let 
every soul be subject urito the higher powers ; 
for there is no power but of God ; the powers 
that be are ordained of God." [Rom. xiii, ].] 
See also verse 2d. "Whosoever, therefore, re- 
sisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of 
God ; and they that resist shall receive to them- 
selves damnation, for i-ulei's are not a terror to 
good works, but to evil." We ask them with 
all due respect, " By what authority do ye these 
things? And who gave you this authority?" 
The mere declaration of an assembly of flillible 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 269 

men, especially when under a mistaken notion 
that God has authorized them to make and pro- 
mulgate laws for his church, is woilh no more 
than the mere opinion of any other erring man. 
The article on slaveholding, which we have 
quoted, is of no more binding force on the con- 
science than the Decrees of the Council of 
Trent, on the subject of purgatory. The ground 
on which they rest is precisely the same ; 
neither being sustained by the teachings of the 
Scriptures, but both resting on perversions of 
the Bible. The powers of no church court are 
'legislative ; that is, no church court has the 
power to make new laws to sustain a false posi- 
tion. The power of church courts is simply 
judicial and executive ; that is, the church has 
the right to expound and enforce the law of 
God on those over whom her jurisdiction ex- 
tends. But still, in all matters the principle is 
recognized that all such expositions ai'e liable to 
be discussed by the individual members of that 
church, whether these expositions are believed 
to be a perversion of the Bible, or rest merely 
on human authority. 

This position is clear from the acknowledged 
principle, called the " right of private judg- 
ment." Popery is abused and discarded \)\ 
w* 



270 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

Protestants on the ground that it requires men 
-to surrender their judgment to the Pope and 
;priesthood. But, on what higher ground do 
-all the testimonies, the terms of communion and 
.the anathemas of abolition church courts rest? 
They are nothing more nor less than an attempt 
to dictate to Southern Christians ; and did not 
these things rest on very slender ground, there 
would be less noise and 7nore peace among 
brethren. It is a sound principle — open to be 
confirmed by the observation and experience of 
every intelligent man — that Just in proportion 
'CIS a matter is clearly revealed in the Bible^jitst 
in the same proportion is there less disjntte about 
it; and, on the contrary, just in proportion as 
the assumed 2^osition is not suppjorted hy the 
JBihle^ just in the same deyree do men become 
fanatical and unreasoncdtle in its support. 
This illustrates the position of the abolition 
wing of the church at the North on the subject 
of slavery. The Bible clearly condemns idola- 
try, profanity. Sabbath-breaking, murder, adul- 
tery, lying, theft, diunkenness, fornication, 
pride, lust and similar sins, and there is no dis- 
pute about these things ; on the contrary, 
neither Christ nor his inspired apostles have 
condemned nor excluded the slaveholder from 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 271 

the pale of tlie church on eartli, nor from the 
Ivingdom of glory in Heaven. But, abolition 
church courts have gotten tlie idea into their 
heads that they (that is, Christ and his apostles) 
should have done both ; but, as long as these 
inspired teachers and wiiters have not done so, 
they will finish their work for them, and exclude 
all slaveholders from his church on earth, and 
thus virtually declare by their actions — if they 
deny it by words — that they have the right to 
open and shut the kingdom of Heaven against 
whom they may not fancy are up to their 
standard of purity. From all such mere human 
decrees Ave beg most respectfully to differ. 
" Who art thou, that judgest another man's 
:servant ; to his own master he shall stand or 
fall." "Therefore, thou art inexcusable, O 
man, whosoever thou art that judgest ; for, 
wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest 
thyself; for thou, that judgest, doest the same 
things." (Rom. ii, 1) 

It would seem that when Christ and his ai)OS. 
ties have not condemned the slaveholder, aboli- 
tion church courts should hold their peace, lest 
they should be found adding to the AVord of 
God, and expose themselves to the anathemas 
of Him who is able to destroy both soul 



"272 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

and body, and who hath said, " If any man 
•shall add unto these things, God shall add unto 
him the plagues that are written in this book." 
(Rev. xxii, 18.) "Let him that standeth take 
•heed lest he foil." We thus speak because we 
think that many Northern men have forgotten 
that they are men, and would assume the pre- 
rogatives of God. Neither do we say these 
things in bitterness, but in sorrow. We con- 
"ceive it to be our duty to " cry aloud and spare 
not ; to lift up our voice like a trumpet ; to 
-show" the professed people of God their trans- 
gressions, and those that would be holier than 
we their sins. 

When Christ was on earth the tax-collector 
•asked Peter if his Master paid tribute. " He 
'saith, yes." And, although Christ showed that 
He was justly entitled to exemption in ])aying 
the tribute, yet He commanded Peter to go to 
the sea, cast in his hook, and in the mouth of 
the first fish that came up he would find a piece 
of money which he should take and pay for 
them both, " lest He should ofiend them " — 
lest He should appear to be a contrary citizen, 
a teacher of rebellion ngainst the civil authority 
of the land. We commend His example to the 
•attention of abolition church courts at the 
North. 



TlIK FUCilllVK SLAVE LAW. 278 

We now i-etnrn to an examination of the 
anti-slavery interpretation of Deut. xxiii, 15. 
This passage is lield to be of nniversal moral 
obligation. If this be the true view of the pas- 
sage, then the 46t]i verse of the 25th chapter 
of Leviticus is also in full force, and authorizes 
the slaveholder, or the man who may choose to 
hold slaves, to buy them of the heathen tribes 
of Africa. The laws are in the same code, 
given by the same authority, and there is noth- 
ing to hinder the general application of the one 
more than the other. Where is the consistency 
of holding that Dent, xxiii, 15, is of univei'sal 
moral obligation, and rejecting Leviticus xxv, 
45, as local and temporary ? When it suits the 
purpose of the anti-slavery advocate, he holds 
that the law of Moses is of universal moral obli- 
gation ; but, when it is against him, and tavors 
the idea that the Jews Mere authorized to buy 
slaves — to hold them as property — to entail 
them as an inheritance on their children — then 
this is all local and temporary. Consistency, 
thou art a jewel! The truth is, both of the 
laws belong exclusively to the Hebrew nation. 
The one showing that they were forbidden to 
deliver the fugitive who had left a litathoi 
master, as we have shown. The other shows 



274 THE FUGITIVE SLATE LAW, 

"that slavery was authorized under tlie law of 
God Gfiven bv Moses: that it was not then con- 
sidered a sin in itself, and was only an exempli- 
fication of the truth of the judicial sentence 
God had passed upon Ham and his posterity 
before that economy came into existence, and 
completely overthrows the absurd and silly no- 
tion that slavery is a sin always and every- 
where. The law of Levit. xxv, 46, shows that 
it was not a sin to buy and to hold as property 
bond-men and bond-maids, and to transmit 
them as an inheritance to children. The slave- 
holder does not claim this as the passage which 
authorizes him to hold slaves. He claims the 
rioht to hold slaves from the fact that God, bv 
a judicial sentence, subjected the descendants of 
Ham to those of Shem and Japheth ; that the 
Jewish economy, or law of God given by Moses, 
recognized this sentence as right, and the New 
Testament has not repealed or reversed it. 
The conduct of the angel of the Lord in order- 
ing Hagar to return and submit herself under 
the hand of her mistress, is opposed to the 
abolition construction of Ex. xxv, 15; and the 
example of the apostle Paul shows that it is the 
•duty of Cliristians, and especially the duty of 
•Christian ministers, to respect the legal rights 



THE FUGITIVK SLAVE LAW. 27 



O 



of the slavelioUler — to return the runaway to 
liis lawful owner, instead of encoui-aoinir him 
to shoot his master — furnishing him with deadly 
weapons, instead of a friendly letter of reeoni- 
mendation to the favorable regard of his mas- 
ter; to do this last, instead of encouraging 
and aiding the fugitive to escape to Canada 
amid the rigors of a climate that he is utterly 
disqu:ilitied by his Creator to withstand. There 
is very little love shown to the poor negro by 
sendins: him into a frozen region asrainst which 
lie is unfitted to stand. The hot regions of the 
South is his native home; and when he is 
removed from it, he pines away — withers and 
dies prematurely like the tender orange of his 
own native clime. It is a mistaken policy — it is 
i7ihumaiiity instead of philanthropy — thus tO' 
treat the poor, friendless, simple stranger. 

The Fugitive Slave Law, then, is certainly,, 
according t<^ the teachings of the Scriptures, 
not immoral, or wicked. The " higher law" 
confirms instead of destroys its provisions. It 
is the duty of all good citizens to respect its 
provisions ; to see to it that they throw no 
unnecessary obstructions in the w\ay of the 
authorized ofiicers in executing it, but to uphold 
and sustain them in the discharge of their duty.. 



276 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

To act otherwise, is to rebel against tlie civil 
authority of the land ; to abuse the officers, is 
" to speak evil of the rulers of thy people," to 
incur the disapprobation of the Creator, to pour 
contempt upon his word, and condemn the con- 
duct of his angel and his inspired apostles. 

To refuse to obey the laws of the land requir- 
ing the rendition of the fugitive from labor to 
his master, is not only contrary to the example 
of an inspired apostle, but is worse than heatli- 
enish. This, to many, may seem a strange, or 
even rash, assertion. Let us see, then, if there 
is anytliing in the Bible to sustain our position. 

There was a phice called Gath ; it was a city 
of the Philistines, and tlie capital of that nation. 
Achish, the son of Moachah, was the king at 
the period to which we refer. The Philistines 
were heathens; that is, they knew little, if any- 
thing, about the nature and worship of the true 
God. They were idolaters, for they worshipped 
Dagon. Achish, king of Gath, lived about the 
same time A\ith Solomon, king of Israel. Now 
there was a very bad and troublesome man in 
Israel, by the name of Shimei. He was so 
wicked that he cursed David, the king, one day. 
He threw stones and earth in contempt at 
David. David, for certain reasons, did not pun- 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 27 T 

isli liiiH, V)Ut he charged Soh^nion to punisli liinv 
for his iniscoiiduct. Solomon, accordingly,, 
called Shimei, and told him to l)nild him a 
house in Jerusalem, and not to leave the city on 
pain of death. This he agreed to do. But he 
somehow was the owner of some slaves, and 
two of them took it into their heads to run 
away from their master, Shimei, and go to 
Achish, king of Gath. "And they told Shi- 
mei, saying. Behold, thy servants be in Gath ; 
and Shimei arose, and saddled his ass, and went 
to Gath — to Achish — to seek his servants. And 
Shimei went and brought his servants from 
Gath.'' (1st Kings ii, 3G-40.) Now, this 
heathen king did not refuse to give up to Shimei 
his servants; there was no mob — no opposition; 
but the servants were surrendered without a 
word. Could not many of the professing Chris- 
tians learn a useful lesson from the conduct of 
this heathen king and his sul)jects? We have 
made out the proof— judge ye what I say. 

There is one more point to which we wish 
to call the attention of those who are ennao-ed 
in the low business of i-unning slaves oif to 
Canada. The Bible recognizes the right of 
property in slaves. The law of God, given by 
Moses, expressly says that the servant is the 

X 



278 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

master's "money." Piiul, in his epistles, recog- 
nizes the same thing. " Art thou called, being 
a servant, care not for it ; for he, that is called 
in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's free 
man." Here the contrast is between civil bond- 
age and religious freedom, and nothing is said 
against the master of the servant. But Paul 
recognized Philemon's right of property in 
Onesiraus. The laws of the land recognize the 
same principle. Now, theft consists in taking a 
man's property without his knowledge or con- 
sent. This is done by every abolitionist when 
he aids, advises, or assists in running off a slave 
to Canada. He, then, is a thief in the eye of 
both human and divine law ; and he should 
remember who has said that no thief shall enter 
into Heaven. 

Before closing our labor, we deem it neces. 
sary that we should make a few remarks on the 
subject of property in slaves. In treating them 
as personal property — of course they are in many 
respects different from mere material property — 
we only claim that their thne^ the Sabbath ex- 
cepted, belongs to their master. We do not^ 
neither do we know of any slaveholders who do 
maintain the position that slaves are property 
of the same kind and to be treated in the same 



THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 279 

way with horses, sheep, hogs, or cattle. These 
are mere dumb beasts ; but our slaves are rational 
and accountable creatures, and are to be treated 
as such. But tlie mere trathc in slaves, for the 
sake of gain, is a practice in which very few 
Christian slaveholders engage. But, that they 
are property, and recognized as such both by 
divine and civil law, is a point that can admit of 
little dispute among those who desire to know 
the truth. The Scriptures are much fuller on 
this point than on the establishment of the 
mere rlgJit of propert}^ in other things. Even 
Dr. Wayland (Moral Science, pages 232-234) 
argues the right of property from other circum- 
stances, and says, " Xow God signifies to us his 
will on this subject : 

First. — "By the decisions of natural con- 
science. This is known from several circum- 
stances. First: all men, as soon as they begin 
to think, even in early youth and infancy, per- 
ceive this relation. They immediately appro- 
priate certain things to themselves. They feel 
injured if their control over those things is vio- 
lated, and they are conscious of guilt if they 
violate this i-ight in respect to others. Second : 
the second circumstance is taken from the fact 
that a class of words, called possessive pronouns, 



280 THE FL'GITIVI-: SLAVK LAW 

exists ill all languages. Men can hai-dly talk 
together for a tew minutes, in any language, 
without the frequent use of these pronouns. 
Third: the third circumstanee is taken from the 
fact that men not only feel the importance of 
sustaining each other in this right, Init when 
this right is violated, there is a sense of wrong ;" 
that is, the man who has violated the right of 
property, deserves punishment on the ground, 
not simi)ly in co)isequence of the acf^ but guilti- 
iiess of the actio) t — that simple restitutioii 
is not sufficient compensation for the injury 
done, but panhliriv'nt is due for the crime. 
"Hence, the Jewish law enjoined te/ tf old resti- 
tution in cases of tliefl, and modern law inflicts 
tines, imprisonment and corporeal punishment 
for the same oftence.'' 

According to this view of the subject — Dr. 
Wayland being judge — the civil laws of the 
land are correct in inflicting tines on those who 
harbor or steal fuoitive slaves. If the aboli- 
tionists were compelled to pay ten times the 
value of all the slaves they have stolen, they 
would be bankrupts ; still, this would not be a 
higher fine than was imposed on the thief 
according to the law of (Tod given by Moses. 
We suppose that most of the slaveholders 



THI'] FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 281 

would sell out to tlio abolitionists on these 
terms. Tliey may have all wc liave at this 
price. 

The second general argument of Dr. Way- 
land to show that God wills the possession of 
property is derived from the "general conse- 
quences which result from the existence of the 
relation.'' " The existence and progress of so- 
ciety, nay, the very existence of our race, de- 
jjends upon the acknowledgment of this right.'- 

We may remark here that the stability and 
continuance of this great Confederacy depends 
to a great extent on the observance of the laws 
of the land, and to a great extent on the faith- 
ful observance and execution of those laws wliich 
relate to the right of pro})erty in slaves. We 
give the following summary of Dr. Wayland's 
view of the consequences resulting to society 
from the non-acknowledgment of the right of 
property: There would be but little produced 
beyond the bare necessities of life ; there would 
be no accumulation ; progress would be out of 
the question ; and that just in proportion as the 
right of property is preserved inviolate, just in 
the same proportion will civilization advance, 
and the comforts and conveniences of life mul- 
tiply. Such is a brief summary of his argument 

X* 



282 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

on the acknowledgment and preservation of the 
riglit of property. Xow for tlie argument for 
the riglit of property derived from the Scrip- 
tures : 

Third. — "The holy S^rii)tures treat the right 
of property a^i a tJihig (p-kaowUdged.''^ They 
do not estahUsJb the right of property ; they 
merely acknowledge it, "and direct their pre- 
cepts against every act by which it is violated, 
and also against tempers of mind from which 
such violation proceeds. The doctrine of reve- 
lation is so clearly set forth on this subject that 
I need not delay for the sake of dweUing upon 
it. It will be suthcient to refer to the prohibi- 
tions in the Decalogue against stealing and cov- 
eting, and to the various precepts in the New 
Testament respecting our duty in regard to our 
duty to our neighbors' i)ossessions." 

We suppose, then, that slave-holders are not 
neighbors; that they have no possessions in 
slaves which should be respected, but wherever 
the slaves may be found, they are the lawful 
prey of abolitionists, and their owners are all 
" thieves " and " robbers I " This is admirable 
logic and very scriptural conduct ! I 

" The Scriptures treat of the right of property 
as a thimx acknowledged," and make laws ac- 



TIIK FUGITIVE SLAVK LAW. 288 

/cordingly. But the i^ame authority says that a 
man's servant is nis money." (Exodus xxi, 20.) 
'The possessive i)ronoun iiis is not only used 
here, but the servant is declared to be liis mas- 
ter's moxi:y, the standard by wliich all property 
is valued. " Both tJnj bond men and thij bond 
,maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the 
lieathen that are round about you. * ^' And 
they shall be i/onr possession; and ye shall take 
them as an inheritance for your children after 
you, to inherit them for a possession ; they shall 
be your bond men forever." (Levit. xxv, 44-6.) 
This looks rather strange that God, in his law 
by Moses, should use these possessive pronouns 
wdiich express the relation of property, in regard 
to human beings! Christ and his apostles found 
men owning and claiming the right of property 
in human beings while on earth, but, terrible to 
relate, they did not proclaim the unlawfulness 
-of the matter, " because its announcement would 
have been the signal of civil war." I ! On the 
contrary they went on to prescribe the duties 
growing out of the relation of master and slave, 
And not only recognized tlio I'ight of property 
in slaves, but returned a runaway to his master, 
not being willing to do anything without the 
mind of the servant's master. "The relation 



284 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

of property," says Dr. Waylaiid, " is expressed 
by the possessive pronouns." The writers of 
•the New Testament do not merely use tlie 6-///^- 
ple possessive pronoun on this subject, but they 
use those tliat are called by fjrammarians em- 
phfitlc pronouns. "Let as many servants as 
are under the yoke count tiieih owx masters 
worthy of all honor." (I Tim. vi, 1.) "Ex- 
hort servants to be obedient unto their own 
masters. (Tit. ii, 9.) " Say in a word and ony 
servant shall be healed." (Luke vii, 7.) 

If Dr. Wayland is correct, that "the rela- 
tion of property is expressed by the possessive 
pronouns," then the position we have taken in 
regard to the descendants of Ham being sub- 
jected to the will of those of Shem and Japheth, 
is not only continued, but the rl(/Jit of property 
of Shem and Japheth in Ham's posterity was 
also recognized ; for God says to Noah, (Gen. 
ix, 26-7) "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; 
and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall en- 
large Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents 
of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." 
■" Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, 
nor Jiis man servant, nor Jiis maid servant." 

If, then, Christ and his apostles did not con- 
demn slavery as sinful, but went on and pre- 



tup: FL'GITIVE SLAVE LAW. 285 

scribed the duties growing out of tlie relation, 
did tliey not by this procedure acknowledge 
the lawfulness of the relation and the validity 
of the master's claim to his servants just as 
much as they did by directing precepts against 
every act by whicli the right of property is vio- 
lated, acknowledge the right of pro])erty itself? 
To us, at least, there appears to be a great 6'/;/-!-- 
ilarity in the two things, even if the right of 
property in slaves had not been acknowledged 
in so many words in the Scriptures. The Scrip- 
tures seem to be plain on this matter, and where 
men depart from them and try to put their own 
teachings in the place of the Bible, they usually 
iret caui^ht in their own craftiness. God knew 
that men would be (piick and very forward to 
claim what they considered their own, and 
hence He saw that there was no necessity to say 
that tlie claim to property was right. All that 
lie saw to be necessary was to enact laws to 
protect tlie right and fix the punislunent which 
should be meted out to the offender. But He 
equally foresaw^ that He would subject one part 
of the human family to the two other divisions 
of it. He knew from tlie wickedness of the liu- 
man heart, that servants would be temi)ted to 
rebel aixainst the authority of their masters, 



286 THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 

and that men pretending to be the friends of 
the slave would not only deny the right of pro- 
perty in slaves, but denounce the master as a 
thief, a robber, a murderer and a man-stealer, 
iind use his influence to destroy or break down 
the master's claim; and hence, foreseeing all 
these things. He has caused His servants, by 
whom His will has been made known to men, 
to be more particular with this kind of property 
than that to which the right would not be dis- 
puted. This seems to us to be a natural and 
■easy explanation of the matter — at least this 
explanation is in accordance with the facts of 
actual revelation. Were we to require of Dr. 
Way land or any other man, to prove by the 
Scriptures that God wills the possession of pro- 
perty, he could not do so, but he would re])ly, 
'''The holy Scriptures treat of the riglit of pro- 
perty as a thing acknowledged.'"' This is his 
answer. He thinks this a good reason. When 
the slaveholder tells him that God has prescribed 
the mutual duties of masters and slaves, there- 
by recognizing the relation as lawful, and tacitly 
acknowledging the right of property in the 
slave, why he opens his eyes and says, " it's all 
stuff! " He reminds us very much of the par- 
tial judge in the spelling book — the thing loill 
work one way, but /nnst )wt work the other. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 28T 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



In tlie preceding portions of our work we 
have attempted to show that siihordi nation is 
the normal, or rather the proper condition of" 
the race of Ham. The race has been, by the 
direct act of the reator, placed in subjection to 
the descendants of Slieni and Japheth, These 
principles are in accordance not only with the 
teachings of the Bible, but also in exact har- 
mony with historical facts, for the negro, left to 
himself, has never made any considerable ad- 
vances in the arts of civilized life. The history 
of Africa, compared with that of Europe, Asia, 
or America, establish this position beyond suc- 
cessful contradiction. Facts go to show that the 
negro is never so happy, elevated, and benefi- 
cial to liimself, as when under the control and 
guidance of the superior white man; and all at- 
tempts to place him on an ecpiality with the 
white man have been stamped with signal fail- 



288 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

lire. Tliere arc a few individual exceptions to 
this, wliicli we cheerfully admit. But any aili- 
ficial attempt to place the negro on an equality 
with white men has been and must be marked 
Avith a signal faihire. It is an attempt to make 
that " straight which God has made crooked.'^ 
It is an attempt to improve His work. It in- 
volves an absurdity, and of course must and 
will prove abortive. By the subjection of the 
slave to the will of his master, " It, (slavery,) 
tends," says Dr. Wayland, " to abolish in him^ 
(the slave,) all moral distinctions; and thus fos- 
ter in him lying, deceit, hypocrisy, dishonesty, 
and a willingness to yield himself up to minister 
to the ajjpetites of his master. * * * 
That such is the tendency of slaver//, as slavery y 
we think no reflecting person can for a moment 
hesitate to allow." Again, slavery '' takes from 
the laborers the natnral stiijiulns to labor, 
namely, the desire in the individual of improv- 
ing his condition ; and substitutes, in the place 
of it, that motive v\hich is the least operative 
and least constant, namely, the fear of punish- 
ment without the consciousness of moral delin- 
quency. It removes as tar as possible, from 
both parties, (master and slave,) the disposition 
and motives to frugality. Xeither the master 



CONCLUDING REMAHKS. 289 

learns frugality from the necessity of labor, nor 
the slave from th(; benefits which it confers. 
And hence, while one i)arty waste from igno- 
rance of the laws of acquisition, and the oilier 
because he can have no motive to economy, 
capital must accumulate but slowly, if indeed 
it accumulate at all." (Moral Science, p. 210.) 
As to the correctness of these asscrfwjiti, for 
they deserve no l)etter name, let fact.^ be sub- 
mitted. As to slavery taking away the " natu- 
fai stimulus to laboi-," let any impartial man 
1 ead tlie liistory of emancipation as it has worked 
in tl)e British West India Islands. He may 
read •• Carey's Slave Trade," " Bigelow's Xotes 
on Jamaica," or ''The West Indiasand North 
America," by Itobert Baird, A. M., and he can 
see how far slavery takes away this "natural 
stimulus to labor." Where theie were once fine 
sugar and coftee plantations, flourishing cities, 
there are natural forests, weeds, desolation, 
empty and deserted houses, and idle machineiy. 
Tlie most l)usy thoroughfares of former times 
ha\ e now almost the <piietude of a Sabballi." 
The emancipated negroes, instead of laboring 
from a •' natural stimulus to labor," have re- 
turned to a natural state of savage barbarism. 
Idleness, dissipation, laziness, for whicli the negro 

Y 



290 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

is remarkable, now reign. The free negro now 
lounges in glorious ease, filtbiness and poverty^ 
under the refreshing shades of the native forest. 
As to the lying, deceitful, hyj^ocritical, and 
thievish propensities of the free negroes, we 
think that our Northern friends, and those of 
Oanada, can tell enough without our testimony. 
We know one thing, and every man knoAvs the 
same who has lived in a slave State, that the 
slaves are not one huridredth part as bad for 
these vices as the free negroes. We may add, 
too, that nine-tenths of free negroes are drunk- 
ards, liars, thieves, and lazy. 

As to the moral effects of slaAcry and eman- 
cipation, we are willing at any time to decide 
the question by a comparison of our slave pop- 
ulation in the Southern States with the moral 
and relisfious condition of the free ne2:roes of 
the British West Indies. As to Missionary 
efforts, let the foUowino- extract from Carev's 
" Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign," suffice. 
" Missionary efforts in Jamaica are beset at the 
present time with many and great discourage- 
ments. Societies at home have withdrawn or 
dimnished the amount of assistance afforded by 
them to chapels and schools throughout this 
island. The prostrate condition of its agricul- 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 291 

tare and coiumerce disables its own population 
from doing as much as formerly for maintaining 
the worship of God and the tuition of the young, 
and induces numbers of negro laborers to retire 
from estates which hav^e been thrown up, to 
-seek means of subsistence in the mountains, 
where they are screened in general from moral 
training and superintendence. The consequence 
of this state of matters is very disastrous. Not 
a few missionaries and teachers, after struggling 
with difficuUies which they could not overcome^ 
have returned to Europe, and others are pre- 
paring to follow them. Chapels and schools are 
4\bandoned, or they have passed into the liands 
•of very incompetent instructors." 

Let the statistics of our missionary societies 
in the Southern States be compared with these 
•statements, and then we will see in whose favor 
the facts are. Men — and especially anti-slavery 
men — think that the negro is very docile, and 
easily taught : this is the merest humbug. We 
have tried both white men and negroes. We 
have preached to the lowest class of white men, 
and to the highest class of negroes, and we 
have found, after twelve (12) years' experience, 
that the sensual has by far the greatest influence 
over the neirro. We do not believe that he will 



292 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

be responsible to the same degree as the white 
man, simply because so mucli has not been be- 
stowed on liitn by his Creator, Where little is 
given, little will be required. We have found 
that slaves are more consistent and better Chris- 
tians than free negroes, and one of the reasons 
of this is to be found in the tact that thev are 
not surrounded with the same temptations — to 
lying, deceit, hypocrisy, drunkenness and dis- 
honesty — that encompass the free negro. Leave 
the negro to himself — from the influence of the 
wliite man — and he will soon return to a state 
of savage barbarism. 

"The negroes," says Allison, the historian, 
f^peaking of the British act of emancipation, 
" who, in a state of slavery, were comfortable 
iind prosperous beyond any peasantry in the 
world, and rapidly approaching the condition of 
the most opulent sei'fs of Europe, have been by 
the act of emancipation irretrievably consigaed 
to a state of barbarism^''''' and such would be 
the result of emancipation in the Southern 
States. The white population would either 
leave the negroes to " one long day of unprofit- 
able ease" — leave them to dream of paradise, 
or their abolition friends to dream for them — or 
they would exterminate them without mercv. 



L'ONCLl DINC; KKMAHKi;. 298 

J>ut. lot tlio neo'ro drciiui oC ca-^' willioiit 
labor, and the coiisequciici' would he as it 
always lias l)e('n — that is, st;n vation, povcity, 
disease and death \\(>iil<l ho the ro'-Mlt. The 
iieQ'ro will H'U work witlnmt soiiicthiiiLi' t<Mnake 
him (h) so. Man is (hxuned {o cat hread in th«.' 
sweat of his face. This he caimol rex^rse. |[f 
may dream o\' paradise, hui. while he dreams, 
the laws of iiatui'e :i\\- sli'i'nly at their work. 
Indolenee henunihs his feeble iiitelleet, and 
inflames his j>assious ; ])Overty and m ant are 
creeping on him: temptation is surrounding 
Jiim ; and viee. with all hei" motley ti'ain, is 
winding fast her deadly coils around his very 
soid, and making him the deviTs slave, to <hi his 
work upon the eartli. Thus, the blossoms of his 
paradise hyq f.ne tronis, and its fruits are defith.''^ 

Men must lal>oi'. If tliey will not do so of 
their own choice, they must Vx? compelled to do 
:SO, or star\ e. They w ill steal, if others work. 
This evil Iji'ings the j»unishment of divine and 
human law. 

Why, then, distuil) a system that is beneiicial 
to the ])hysical and moial welfare of the negro? 
WliV remove him fi-om the restraint of Ch)"is- 
tian and civilized life, and turn him back to 
Na^■age barbarism, peinn'y, want and starvati<»n. 



'294 coNCLUDiNa remarks. 

iiiei-cly for the sake of saying that lie is fret ? 
Of what advantage is freedom, if men are not 
competent to use it to their own and their 
neighbors" good V Why send back a large 

•number of Afriea's benighted sons to a state of 
worse than heatlienism ? Why take away the 
comfort they now enjoy, and turn them out to 

: starve, or steal, or to be destroyed by a supe- 
rior race';' Why all this noise about freedom, 

^when that boasted freedom would bring anarchy, 

•poverty, sutiering, moral and physical desolation 
to the negro? Is there any of the spirit of 

■Christianity in all this agitatk>n ? The exam- 

,ples of the French revolutionists and the act of 
British emanci[)ation should be a warning to all 
abolitionists. 

We are done — our work is finished. We 
liave s}>oken what we believe to be the truth, 

-and have attem})ted to establish it by the Bible. 

.Let every one jndge for himself. 



Tin: END. 



^■: 



